Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CONTAINING MULTITUDES
Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8 in Perspective
UPPSALA 2009
Dissertation presented at Uppsala University to be publicly examined in Ihresalen, Engelska
parken, Humanistiskt centrum, Thunbergsvägen 3, Uppsala, Saturday, May 16, 2009 at 10:15
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The examination will be conducted in English.
Abstract
Nyström, E. 2009. Containing Multitudes. Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8 in Perspective. Acta
Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 11. 340 pp. ISBN 978-91-554-7501-7.
This study employs as its primary source a codex from Uppsala University Library, Codex
Upsaliensis Graecus 8. Its aim is to contribute to a better understanding of the Late Byzantine
and post-Byzantine miscellaneous book. It is argued that multitext books reflect the time and
society in which they were created. A thorough investigation of such books sheds light on the
interests and concerns of the scribes, owners, and readers of the books. Containing some
ninety texts of different character and from different genres, Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8 is a
complex creation, but still an example of a type of book that was common during the Middle
Ages and the Renaissance. This study takes a comprehensive view of the book in its entirety,
making sense of its different parts in relation to the whole with the help of codicology and
textual analysis. With that approach the original idea of the book is brought to the fore, and
the texts are studied in the same context that the main scribe Theodoros chose and the early
owners and readers of the book encountered.
Through a systematic codicological analysis, the overall structure of the codex is explored
and suggestions are made concerning the provenance. The examination of the scribal work
procedure becomes a means to profile this otherwise fairly unknown scribe. The texts are
grouped and characterized typologically to illustrate connections throughout the whole book
as well as in relation to the separate structural units. The role of microtexts and secondary
layers of inscription is also considered. From the perspective of usability the texts are divided
into four categories: narrative texts, rhetorical texts, philosophical-theological texts, and
practical texts. Three texts are studied in greater depth, as examples of the width of the
scribe's interests and the variety of the book's contents.
Keywords: Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8, Byzantine and post-Byzantine book history, codi-
cology, multitext books, miscellany, composite book, microtext, codicological unit, scribal
work procedure
Eva Nyström, Department of Linguistics and Philology, Box 635, Uppsala University,
SE-751 26 Uppsala, Sweden
ISSN 0283-1244
ISBN 978-91-554-7501-7
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-100643 (http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-100643)
Abbreviations................................................................................................13
Preface ..........................................................................................................17
INTRODUCTION
1 Preliminaries: Book History, Codicology, and Philology.........................21
What can a book tell us? – Scope and aim of the study ...........................21
Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8, a first acquaintance..................................22
Book history .............................................................................................25
Codicology...........................................................................................26
Philology, old and new ........................................................................27
Contextualizing medieval books..........................................................29
Previous research on multitext books.......................................................31
A few conference volumes ..................................................................32
Studies of Byzantine multitext books ..................................................33
2 Composite Books and Miscellanies ..........................................................38
Multitext books ........................................................................................38
Terminology current at the time ..........................................................41
The container and its contents ..................................................................42
Physical structure.................................................................................42
The relation between contents and structure........................................44
BRINGING OUT THE STRUCTURE
3 Codicological Description and Analysis...................................................51
General aspects of the codex ....................................................................51
Provenance and further vicissitudes ....................................................51
Library shelf-marks .............................................................................52
Watermarks..........................................................................................52
Book block and binding.......................................................................54
Foliation...............................................................................................55
Scribes .................................................................................................55
Criteria for discerning codicological units ...............................................59
Codicological unit 1 (U1) – the pinax ......................................................62
Nicholas de la Torre’s contribution to Gr 8.........................................62
The selection of entries for the pinax...................................................64
The discarded pinax on f. IIv ................................................................69
Codicological unit 2 (U2), ff. 1–87 ..........................................................70
Anomalies in the quire construction ....................................................71
A reconstruction of Q2–Q3 .................................................................71
Sketch of Q2 and Q3 (ff. 1–6 and 7–12b): ..........................................73
The lacuna before f. 13 ........................................................................74
Some reflections around the boundary at f. 76 ....................................76
Secondary layers of U2........................................................................78
Codicological unit 3 (U3), ff. 88–103 ......................................................80
Bridging components at a manifest unit boundary ..............................81
Codicological unit 4 (U4), ff. 104–127 ....................................................82
Theodoros’ collaborator, co-scribe A ..................................................83
Codicological unit 5 (U5), ff. 128–151 ....................................................85
Theodoros as rubricator .......................................................................86
Codicological unit 6 (U6), ff. 152–199 ....................................................87
: a schematic outline of the virtues.................................87
Codicological unit 7 (U7), ff. 200–207 ....................................................89
The affinity between U6 and U7 .........................................................90
Codicological unit 8 (U8), ff. 208–223 ....................................................91
Transposed units? ................................................................................91
Codicological unit 9 (U9), ff. 224–237 ....................................................93
The change in layout between Q31 and Q32.......................................93
Codicological unit 10 (U10), ff. 238–253 ................................................94
Codicological unit 11 (U11), ff. 254–261 ................................................95
U11–12: One divisible unit or two single but closely related units? ...95
Recycling of page fillers......................................................................96
Codicological unit 12 (U12), ff. 262–285 ................................................97
The relationship between micro-texts..................................................97
Codicological unit 13 (U13), ff. 286–301 ................................................98
A unit sloppily written or not?.............................................................99
Codicological unit 14 (U14), ff. 302–307 ..............................................100
The notes and scribblings in U14 ......................................................101
Codicological unit 15 (U15), ff. 308–323 ..............................................103
The scribes of U15.............................................................................103
The quire boundary at Q42–43 ..........................................................104
Codicological unit 16 (U16), ff. 324–331 ..............................................106
Minor additions of various kinds.......................................................106
The mathematical note at the end of the preceding unit ....................107
Codicological unit 17 (U17), ff. 332–336 ..............................................108
Aesopian leftovers .............................................................................108
The composite with all its units..............................................................110
The importance of structural analysis................................................110
The final design .................................................................................112
MAKING SENSE OF A ONE-VOLUME LIBRARY
4 The contents of Gr 8 ...............................................................................117
How to assort and categorize (and to what end).....................................117
Categories of texts in Gr 8 .....................................................................118
Narrative texts ........................................................................................119
Stephanites and Ichnelates.................................................................121
Further fable stories and fictitious biographies..................................124
Historical narratives...........................................................................126
Rhetorical texts.......................................................................................130
Oratory...............................................................................................131
Poetry.................................................................................................134
Epistolography...................................................................................137
Philosophical and theological texts ........................................................151
Cosmology according to the ancient philosophers ............................152
The soul .............................................................................................154
Gregory Thaumatourgos et sqq. ........................................................156
Reverberations from the Ferrara-Florence discussions......................159
Fate and predestination ......................................................................162
More on virtue and vice.....................................................................164
Devotional, biblical, and liturgical texts............................................165
Practical texts .........................................................................................166
Gnomical texts ...................................................................................167
Gnomologies......................................................................................168
Scattered sayings ...............................................................................171
Lists ...................................................................................................172
Lexica ................................................................................................173
Medical texts......................................................................................174
Mathematical problems .....................................................................175
Astrology/divination ..........................................................................176
An idiosyncratic selection..................................................................176
Minding the gaps, bridging the differences............................................176
TAKING A CLOSER LOOK
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts ........................................................183
“Varia nullius momenti” or significant components? ............................183
Due to the lack of self control: Text 29..................................................184
Text 29 (ff. 189v–190v) .....................................................................186
Translation .........................................................................................187
Menstrual impurity ............................................................................189
The medical view of menstruation ....................................................191
The penalty paid ................................................................................195
A mindset established and transmitted ..............................................200
The method of ramplion: Text 66 ..........................................................212
Magic and divination in Byzantium...................................................213
Text 66 (ff. 283v–285v) .....................................................................218
How to create a geomantic chart .......................................................224
The astrological lore in Text 66.........................................................226
Why is Text 66 incomplete? ..............................................................232
A further look at the background of geomancy .................................232
Not a poor man’s astrology................................................................235
How to address the Pope (and a friend): Text 81 ...................................238
Text 81 (ff. 320r–323r) ......................................................................242
Ecclesiastical offices..........................................................................246
Secular offices ...................................................................................249
The formulary reflecting a certain milieu ..........................................258
Addendum: The formulary in Codex Escorialensis
.IV.1...............261
Afterword....................................................................................................263
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8 ..............................................................265
Text 6.................................................................................................265
Text 12...............................................................................................265
Text 14...............................................................................................270
Text 18...............................................................................................270
Text 19...............................................................................................272
Text 29...............................................................................................273
Text 30...............................................................................................274
Text 31...............................................................................................275
Text 32...............................................................................................275
Text 33...............................................................................................276
Text 35...............................................................................................277
Text 38...............................................................................................277
Text 41...............................................................................................280
Text 48...............................................................................................282
Text 49...............................................................................................290
Text 53...............................................................................................290
Text 57...............................................................................................293
Text 60...............................................................................................293
Text 61...............................................................................................294
Text 65b.............................................................................................296
Text 66...............................................................................................296
Text 81...............................................................................................296
Appendix 2: Codicological table ................................................................297
Bibliography ...............................................................................................311
Index ...........................................................................................................334
Abbreviations
17
Preface
1
DAVIDSON 1989, 1.
18
INTRODUCTION
1 Preliminaries: Book History, Codicology,
and Philology
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass
What can a book tell us? – Scope and aim of the study
The main focus of this study is a late fifteenth-century codex from Uppsala
University Library, Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8 (henceforth abbreviated
Gr 8). The book presents a kaleidoscopic combination of some ninety texts
of various character and length, and despite the fact that technically it is
made up of several units, the book was almost entirely produced by one and
the same scribe. One may thus expect it to reflect a particular individual’s
reading interests, whether the scribe collected the texts for himself or for a
commissioner.
Gr 8 is a many-sided book in a number of ways: it is post-Byzantine but
also not—few of the included works are of later origin than the 1450s. The
subject matter is Greco-Byzantine, and yet there are tracks leading to West-
ern Europe, for example Leonardo Bruni’s text about the constitution of
Florence and a couple of others on doctrinal issues debated at the Church
Council of Ferrara-Florence 1438–39. In addition, it opens up to cultures
east of Byzantium, as in a Greek version of the Persian-Arabic fable story
Kalla wa-Dimna and a text on ramplion, a form of divination which seems
to have spread from Arabic-speaking areas. The book gives us religious and
secular texts, advanced and elementary, poetic and practical, in different
styles and on different language levels, works from within a chronological
span of more than 1500 years. The oldest texts are from Hellenistic times or
even earlier, authored by—or attributed to—Aristotle, Isocrates, Hippocrates
and Aesop, to take a few examples. Among the latest texts are letters from
Cardinal Bessarion (d. 1472); one of them, to Michael Apostoles, is dated
1 Preliminaries: Book History, Codicology, and Philology
2
For ancient Greek authors I use the more familiar English or Latinized names. For the Byz-
antine period I follow the example of Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Greek transliteration,
except for those first names which have an equivalent in English).
22
Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8, a first acquaintance
power, and even though this specific assignment was hopeless, Sparwenfeld
did bring home a considerable number of manuscripts from his travels.3 The
European and North African expedition of 1689–1694 also took him to Ven-
ice, where he obtained codices Gr. 1 and 4, and to Spain where codices Gr.
2–3 and 5–8 came into his hands.
There is no information in the codex itself on exactly when and where in
Spain Sparwenfeld purchased it.4 What we do know is that it once belonged
to the monastery of El Escorial, but disappeared from there in connection
with the great fire in 1671.5 According to the old library catalogs, the codex
was in the library of El Escorial for about a hundred years. Gregorio de
Andrés and Alejo Revilla claim to have information that it arrived at Philip
II’s library by way of Diego Guzman’s acquisition in 1573 of Matteo Dan-
dolo’s books in Venice. But their specifications are confused, and I cannot
say that I have been able to confirm this fact.6 An inventory from the Palace
Archive in Madrid verifies that in 1576 the codex was included in Philip II’s
donation to the Escorial library.7 In chapter 3 I argue that the codex was
probably created around 1480 or somewhat later. The geographic origin is
not clear, but there are indications which may point to Crete; at least it seems
the scribe had connections to the circle of scribes around Michael Apostoles.
3
The donation included books in many different languages besides the Greek (Arabic, Syriac,
Persian, Chinese, Slavonic, among others; see Catalogus centuriae 1706). On Sparwenfeld
himself, see further BIRGEGÅRD 2002, 13–17; JACOBOWSKY 1939.
4
Notes of purchase are found in the following codices: Gr 2 in Madrid, May 1690; Gr 6 in
Valladolid, April 1690; Gr 7 in Toledo, April 1690. According to Carl Wilhelm Jacobowsky,
Sparwenfeld’s stay in Spain lasted nine months, 1689–90 (JACOBOWSKY 1939, 59).
5
On this calamity, in which nearly 4,000 codices were destroyed, see ANDRÉS 1965, 65–81.
Olim Escorialenses are also Sparwenfeld’s codices Gr. 2, 5, 6 and 7; the different notes of
purchase (see n. 4) show that these Escorial codices were already dispersed in many direc-
tions, and that Sparwenfeld could have acquired Gr 8 in any of these places or elsewhere.
6
See No. 66 in Andrés’ catalog on the lost holdings of El Escorial, where he states that this
codex, with the earlier shelf mark . VI. 16, is identical to Gr 8. For the information on Mat-
teo Dandolo as the former owner of the codex he refers to “Revilla p. LXXV n. 142” (ANDRÉS
1968, 38). Yet, in Andrés’ appendices to the edition and Spanish translation of Charles
Graux’s Essai sur les origines du fonds grec de l’Escurial (Los origenes del fondo griego del
Escorial) a certain “Barlaami historia, papyro, nunquam edita. . VI. 16” is put forward as
the book that Guzman de Silva bought from Dandolo in Venice in 1573 (GRAUX 1982, 509,
No. 12). Revilla’s No. 142 refers to a parchment codex in octavo: “Historia Aethiopica, 8o,
perg.” (REVILLA 1936, lxxv). This Historia Aethiopica most likely refers to another Barlaam
codex and not to Gr 8, and since Gr 8 is a paper codex the reference in Revilla seems to be of
no value. I have also checked the archival material which both Revilla and Andrés build upon:
the “Barlaami historia papiro” and the “Historia Æthiopica Joannis monachi pergameno” are
both mentioned among the 87 codices which Guzman bought from Dandolo, but I cannot see
that this would bring us any further in relation to the provenance of Gr 8. Cf. Archivo General
de Simancas, sección de la Secretaría de Estado, legajo 1549, ff. 44–45 (Relaçion de los libros
que se han comprado en Veneçia por orden de su Mg.d y de lo que por ellos pagó el Em-
baxador Diego Guzmán de Silva los quales se han embiado a su Mg.d).
7
BEER 1903, xcii (No 160 c I). Our codex had by then been kept by Juan de Serojas for two
years, i.e. from March 1574. Serojas was Philip II’s treasurer of arms and apparently also the
keeper of the king’s valuable books (BEER 1903, xxviif.).
23
1 Preliminaries: Book History, Codicology, and Philology
Stig Rudberg held a different view in this matter, and suggested Constantin-
ople as the place of origin for Gr 8 by reason of the alleged affinity of Gr 8
to another manuscript, Parisinus graecus 2991A. I will problematize this
later on, in connection with the codicological analysis of the codex.8 Some
notes in Gr 8 by subsequent owners suggest that the book was in Greek
hands up until at least the mid-sixteenth century. That is, accordingly, the
whole story of Gr 8 as we know it today: the codex was created in the 1480s
(Crete?); owned by various Greek-speaking persons at least until around
1550; perhaps bought by Matteo Dandolo after that (not fully corroborated);
purchased—in Venice?—in the 1570s on behalf of the Spanish king, Philip
II; donated to El Escorial in 1576; gone missing from El Escorial in 1671;
acquired by Sparwenfeld around 1690 and brought to Sweden; donated to
Uppsala University Library in 1705.9
Earlier descriptions of Gr 8 include Charles Graux’s contribution in his
Notices sommaires des manuscrits grecs de Suède.10 Like all late nineteenth-
century catalogs, Graux’s publication has its drawbacks, especially when it
comes to codicological matters. But the established practice is also different
nowadays in how to deal with minor texts, scribal remarks, and readers’
additions. If we wish to assess a book in its entirety, these pieces of adia-
phora must also count. They give important information on how scribes
proceeded when replenishing a book, exploiting the space they had at hand.
Furthermore, they may offer insights into how a book was read and used,
perhaps indicating the scribe’s or a reader’s paths of association. Graux’s
catalog provides no information on these points.
In 1994 Sofía Torallas Tovar published a new survey of those Uppsala
codices which were once part of the El Escorial collection. Unfortunately,
this cataloging project did not provide as much novel information as one
may have hoped. At least for Gr 8, her additions seem to be drawn mainly
from the articles which Vilhelm Lundström, Stig Rudberg and Lars-Olof
Sjöberg had already published on the subject.11 Many texts in the manu-
scripts were still left unidentified, just as they were in Graux’s catalog. In the
case of Gr 8, though, an important contribution was Torallas Tovar’s sug-
gested identification of the main scribe, Theodoros. Although she was not
positively stating this, proposing Nicholas Sagundino as her main alternative
(not viable, in my opinion), she did add that “[s]e puede comparar con Hun-
ger, 2, 176, Theodoros, a. 1488.” I believe that it is establishable beyond
doubt that this Theodoros is the person behind Gr 8.12 This scribe is only
known from a colophon in a Paris manuscript and through the comparison of
8
See further p. 110.
9
Sparwenfeld’s letter of donation is included in Catalogus centuriae 1706.
10
GRAUX & MARTIN 1889, 34–41.
11
LUNDSTRÖM 1897; RUDBERG 1960; SJÖBERG 1960; RUDBERG 1977.
12
Cf. TORALLAS TOVAR 1994, 225; Repertorium II, 176. On the scribes in Gr 8, see further
Chapter 3.
24
Book history
his handwriting in the case of Gr 8 and yet another manuscript. One aspira-
tion of this study is to reveal more about his work procedure and, at best, to
give an indication of possible connections between him and other scribes or
scriptoria.
Rudberg emphasized the importance of the numerous inedita in Gr 8.13
Some of these have since been identified as already known and edited works,
others have become the subject of separate studies.14 Although not uncon-
cerned with the aspect of textual editing, my approach is rather to take a
comprehensive view of the book in its entirety, to make sense of its different
parts in relation to the whole. This brings us closer to the original idea of the
book as it took shape through the scribal work, decoration and assembly of
quires and units. It also takes into account the fact that this was the way
these texts met the owners and readers of the book, in precisely that co-
existence of high and low, of varying subject matter and different genres.
Short texts, longer ones, complete texts and minute excerpts: They were all
present and contributed to people’s reading experience.
Book history
By taking a “whole-book approach,” the investigation of Gr 8 becomes part
of a field of research which is nowadays about to establish itself as an aca-
demic discipline in its own right. The labeling of this domain varies between
different universities: at some it is called The History of the Book, at others
Sociology of Literature, or it may, for example, be included in Cultural Stud-
ies. Since this is not a very common common approach in the fields of Clas-
sical and Byzantine Studies, I will introduce it briefly, and also relate it on
one hand to what manuscript scholars are doing in practice, in their codi-
cological and philological research, on the other hand to the theoretical ten-
dencies behind the development in these areas.
Book history is not a new area of research but it has certainly thrived in
recent times. I borrow the definition that the editors Ezra Greenspan and
Jonathan Rose gave in the Introduction to the first issue of the journal Book
History (1998):
Our field of play is the entire history of written communication: the creation,
dissemination, and uses of script and print in any medium, including books,
newspapers, periodicals, manuscripts, and ephemera. We will explore the
social, cultural, and economic history of authorship, publishing, printing, the
book arts, copyright, censorship, bookselling and distribution, libraries,
literacy, literary criticism, reading habits, and reader response.
13
RUDBERG 1960, 6.
14
SEARBY 2003a; SEARBY 2003b; NILSSON & NYSTRÖM 2009.
25
1 Preliminaries: Book History, Codicology, and Philology
Two directions of research have shaped recent studies of book history: the
French Histoire du livre with its connection to the Annales circle focusing
mainly on social history; and the Analytical bibliography with its emphasis
on the study of books as physical objects, which has had its strongest support
among British and American scholars. The broad outlines of Histoire du
livre run the risk of generalizing too much about cultural and social move-
ments if not grounded in knowledge of the actual books, their production and
reception. And, likewise, Analytical bibliography may end up being charged
with antiquarianism if no effort is made to put the particulars on editions,
printing runs, bindings, et cetera, into a larger social context. Nevertheless,
both perspectives are necessary and can fertilize each other.15
What most book history research has had in common, regardless of theo-
retical framework, is that it has been carried out on so-called “modern”
books, i.e. on printed material. This is obvious if we look at some of the
classics in the field: Lucien Febvre’s and Henri-Jean Martin’s work
L’apparition du livre from 1958; Elizabeth Eisenstein’s The Printing Press
as an Agent of Change from 1979; the many eminent publications by, for
example, Robert Darnton, Roger Chartier, Don F. McKenzie, and Jerome J.
McGann; they all reinforce the picture of book history as a discipline inter-
ested principally in material from the sixteenth century onwards. But how is
it possible for “books” suddenly to “appear” in the second half of the fif-
teenth century? As if the manuscript books and the great demand for them
were not the whole reason for inventing the printing press! This lack of his-
torical insight in, or at least conscious disregard of, a long tradition of hand-
written book production, is unfortunately widespread. Another consequence
of this chronological restriction is that researchers have favored the mono-
lithic single-text books, which soon became the prevailing product of print.
Thus, an investigation of medieval, and post-medieval, handwritten books—
of which many are multitext and perhaps even multigenetic—becomes a
wholesome reminder that books may be created in different ways to meet the
needs of the readers, but also that in their different shapes they reflect the
time and society in which they are born.
Codicology
If a certain naïveté has marked many modern studies in their disregard of the
pre-Gutenberg book, we must remember that other voices have been heard
as well. In “Towards a History of the Mediaeval Book” (1967) Léon De-
laissé attacks on more than one flank. He criticizes the histories of the book
15
For a short outline of book history and its development, see, for example: DARNTON 1983;
RUBIN, 2003. The recent debate on whether book history should be considered a discipline in
its own right or rather a meeting place for scholars of different backgrounds, is commented on
by BELL 2002 and VAN DER WEEL 2002.
26
Book history
which are concerned merely with the printed book; he deplores the lack of an
holistic approach to medieval manuscripts, since many experts have limited
themselves to the study of a single element, like script, illumination, or bind-
ing; he complains about textual scholars who pay lipservice to the idea of
codicology being a necessary component of manuscript studies, but who
never reach beyond adding a conventional description of all the manuscripts
to their editions and then fail to use those descriptions for the appreciation of
the content in the book.16 “Too many do not yet know,” he writes, “that the
mediaeval book can be an objectif of study in itself and that [...] the archae-
ology of the manuscript is not only useful to them, but that it will permit the
creation of another history, that of the mediaeval book.”17
What followed upon Delaissé’s article on the “archaeology of the book”
was a discussion as to what this, not altogether new but certainly perfectible,
approach should be called.18 Among those who took part in the discussion
were Albert Gruijs and Albert Deroléz.19 The German term of Hand-
schriftenkunde was already well established. But eventually the term gener-
ally settled on was codicology, nowadays an established scientific branch
with its own organizations for scholarly cooperation, conferences, and jour-
nals. Albert Gruijs wished to retain two different scopes for codicology, one
“stricto sensu” for the technical, hands-on study of all physical aspects of
codices, and one “lato sensu.” The latter would include, for example, the
provenance of the manuscript, its incorporation in libraries or collections and
“the social function it fulfilled in its own day, the philosophical and socio-
logical problems it creates as a cultural phenomenon and communication
medium, the symbolism with which it is associated, and so on.”20 Gruijs’
definition of codicology lato sensu seems to tally well with definitions of
book history at large. I do not see any need for defining the boundaries so
strictly, but prefer to use codicology as a methodological tool in contributing
to the establishment of a history of the book which has room for medieval
and ancient books, just as it manages to accommodate the new book formats
which arise with computer technology at the other end of the time scale.
16
DELAISSÉ 1967, 433.
17
DELAISSÉ 1967, 425, n. 7.
18
That the phenomenon existed long before the name is pointed out by, for example, GUM-
BERT 1975.
19
GRUIJS 1972; DEROLÉZ 1973.
20
GRUIJS 1972, 104.
27
1 Preliminaries: Book History, Codicology, and Philology
28
Book history
New Philology should be balanced against what was already in the making,
long before Cerquiglini pronounced his eulogy on the variant.
Whatever view one takes of New Philology, one must at least admit that
the debate vitalized and inspired researchers to sharpen their arguments.
Whether New Philology’s focus on non-canonized texts was a contribution,
or it was a development already set in motion by (book) historians and phi-
lologists in general, a lasting outcome of many recent studies has been the
enhanced interest in the reception of texts, and the role of the readers vis-à-
vis the books and book production. More ordinary books and “common”
readers have also come to the fore and are studied with a zeal previously
applied only to high culture and the upper cultural strata of society.25
25
Recent publications on books and reading in Byzantium are, for example, CAVALLO 2006
and MONDRAIN 2006.
26
By 2004 Huizinga’s bestseller had been reprinted twenty-seven times and had seen numer-
ous translations into different languages during the more than eighty years since it first ap-
peared. On its reception, see PETERS & SIMONS (1999).
29
1 Preliminaries: Book History, Codicology, and Philology
there are alternative ways of dealing with this belief in “pantextuality.” Try-
ing to place a text in its chronological, geographical, sociological and other
environment is not to put strains on its literary habitat. It means that we cre-
ate a web of texts around it, allowing the text to come forth as a pattern in
the woven fabric. This web is not static, it need not be a matter of the origi-
nal setting, of source hunting; rather, it allows us to read the text afresh when
in a new setting. There is no turning back from the insight that everything is
construed, that all history is narrative. Still, the incredulity toward meta-
narratives has not excused us from scrutinizing the narratives we, as human
beings, create and construe daily.27 If “language, images, and other cultural
phenomena are as central to the production of contemporary social order as
economic or political processes,”28 as both postmodernists and their more
politically oriented critics (whether they work from a Marxist, feminist,
queer, postcolonial, or other agenda) claim, then there is ample reason to
explore the impact that manifestations of language have had also in the past.
The new tendency to contextualize is not uniform in scope. It includes
thinking anew about our literary heritage and earlier canons, looking at cul-
tural production and cultural practice, bringing in nonliterary texts beside the
belles lettres, making place for the low, the marginal, and the grotesque,
leaving more room for alternative voices, mirroring the complexity and
variation of a text rather than its central themes. The orientation which has
received most attention in the attempts to reintroduce history in literary stud-
ies is the so-called New Historicism with Stephen Greenblatt and Catherine
Gallagher as its initiators.29 Not being a theory or doctrine in itself—the
theoretical perspective varies with each practitioner—the label stands for a
way of looking at texts not only as representations of a society’s behavioral
patterns but also as components in re/shaping these patterns and codes.
Questions of authority and power, cultural dominance versus subversive
voices, are the focus of inquiry. I am not endorsing New Historicism’s pos-
tulations as a whole, but certain prerequisites have their analogues in my
investigation. The assumption that representations are best understood when
considered in the context of their specific historical period is one which
comes naturally enough. Likewise the willingness to consider all sorts of
texts and not just the aesthetically valued pieces of literature. I believe that
New Historicism’s interest in identity formation as conditioned by discourse
can be a fruitful point of departure in a venture to analyze the changes which
27
The definition of postmodern as “incredulity toward metanarratives” is Jean-François Lyo-
tard’s (Lyotard 2005, xxiv). On history as narrative, see also WHITE 1987.
28
MCGOWAN 2005, 769.
29
Even Greenblatt himself vacillates in his designation of this theoretical movement, and has
suggested “cultural poetics” as an improvement. Nevertheless, the label has stuck and is now
more or less accepted. See further GALLAGHER & GREENBLATT 2000, 1–18. A balanced pres-
entation of New Historicism together with further suggestions on where to go from there, is
given by Brook Thomas (THOMAS 1991).
30
Previous research on multitext books
Byzantine society and culture went through in Late Palaiologan times and
after the downfall of the Byzantine Empire.
When it comes to understanding cultural representations in the context of
their specific historical period, we encounter a built-in problem concerning
how to define these periods and overarching structures to which we wish to
relate specific documents or occurences. Here I find myself bound in the
hermeneutical dilemma, the connection between part and whole, between
specifics and generalizations. We need the particulars to understand the
whole (even if, when it comes to history, we are aware that the “whole” is
only a creation of our limited minds), and yet without the whole the particu-
lars lose their relative position. Gr 8 is in a way caught in-between different
cultures and different times. It was produced in a Greek-speaking environ-
ment but probably in Venetian-ruled territories, handwritten although the
printed book was beginning to gain in importance, displaying Byzantine
learning at a time when Byzantium itself was past saving. In other terms, the
cultural setting for Gr 8 is not altogether easily determined.
Also on a micro-level the relation between parts and whole will take up a
great deal of my study, viz. the relation between texts within a book and
books made up of separate codicological units. A new appreciation of
medieval cultural expressions must include not only the texts, but also their
embodiment in books. In choosing the book and especially the multitext
book as an object of study, we need not conjure up a context for the
individual text. It is there for us to explore, in abundant constellations, since
every handwritten book is unique and every instance of a text put together
with other texts—by somebody and for somebody—renders a new path to
understanding the place of these texts in their cultural setting.
31
1 Preliminaries: Book History, Codicology, and Philology
30
SHAILOR 1996, 165.
31
The Brussels colloquium was part of the larger Van Hulthem project and of the project
“Medieval collective manuscripts from the Low Countries,” a venture which has also mani-
fested itself in the publication series Middeleeuwse Verzamelhandschriften uit de Neder-
landen. The term “collective” for multi-text manuscripts is, to my mind, not an optimal
choice, since it may be misinterpreted as “produced by several scribes,” a mode of procedure
which may apply also to manuscripts which contain only one text. Cf. the generally accepted
term collective novel for novels which are created by several authors in cooperation.
32
On Devotio moderna and book production, see KOCK 1999.
32
Previous research on multitext books
33
ANROOIJ 1999, 22.
34
The following articles concern Greek and Byzantine miscellaneous books: Marilena Ma-
niaci, “Il codice greco ‘non unitario’: Tipologie e terminologia” (75–107); Edoardo Crisci, “I
più antichi codici miscellanei greci” (109–144); Filippo Ronconi, “Per una tipologia del
codice miscellaneo greco in epoca mediobizantina” (145–182); Daniele Bianconi, “Libri e
mani: Sulla formazione di alcune miscellanee dell’età dei Paleologi” (311–363); Michael D.
Reeve, “Dionysius the Periegete in Miscellanies” (365–378).
33
1 Preliminaries: Book History, Codicology, and Philology
35
HEINRICI 1911, 6.
36
“Was wissenschaftliches und erbauliches Gemeingut war, ist in ihnen regellos in bunter
Folge aufgehäuft, längere und kürzere Auszüge aus den patristischen Klassikern, [...] Florile-
gien, Gnomensammlungen, Glossarien, Namenlexika mit Deutungen, dogmatische, liturgi-
sche, kasuistische, kirchenrechtliche, ethische, geschichtliche, chronologische, naturwissen-
schaftliche, astrologische, rhetorische, grammatische Traktate, Apokalyptisches, Apokryphes,
Legenden, zwischendurch auch medizinische Rezepte, Beschwörungen und sonstige Zeugnis-
se für den Aberglauben der Zeit” (HEINRICI 1911, 6). Although Heinrici’s enumeration of
different kinds of texts is quite inclusive and concerns miscellaneous books as a group, it is in
fact not wide of the mark to fit as a description of the single codex we are dealing with here,
Gr 8.
37
HEINRICI 1911, 7.
38
For a description of the whole manuscript, see WILSON 1978 and WILSON 1966.
39
Wilson suggests that this scribe might tentatively be identified as Nikephoros Alyates
(1966, 306).
34
Previous research on multitext books
part of the texts emanates from the intellectual milieu of the Byzantine poly-
math Michael Psellos (1018–c.1081) and his contemporaries (for example
Symeon Seth). The miscellany was further enriched with Aristotelian mate-
rial in the twelfth century (Psellos is known as a fervid advocate of Plato as
opposed to Aristotle), maybe in the circle of scholars around Anna Kom-
nena, wherein Aristotle’s works received special attention.40 Pontikos calls
attention to the fact that, taken as a whole, the Baroccianus 131 consists of
miscellaneous works from authors of primarily the twelfth century, and sug-
gests that this could indicate that the anonymous compiler of the miscellany
transmitted in the Baroccianus copy, ff. 397–446, may actually have been
one of these authors who belonged to the group which took part in and fur-
thered the twelfth-century Aristotelian revival in Byzantium.41 An interesting
part of Ilias Pontikos’ study, from my perspective, is the discussion of the
purpose of the miscellany, why it was compiled in the first place. He elabo-
rates on this question in chapter IV, arguing that it may have been created as
a teacher’s compendium and used as such in the enkyklios paideia of
twelfth-century Constantinople. Regrettably Pontikos stops at this point,
having given an outline of the genesis of the compendium: we do not get an
answer as to how this compendium or miscellany came to fit into the larger
composite book (Baroccianus 131) of mid-thirteenth century Nicaea, or
whether its use would still be the same when put into the new and much
more voluminous textual mix a century later.
In his article “Literarische Interessen in der Palaiologenzeit anhand von
Gelehrtencodices” (1996) Peter Schreiner shows how miscellanies can mir-
ror the intellectual interests of a certain period of time or a specific person.
The “Gelehrtencodex” is a multitext book compiled by one or several
scribes, which furthermore displays signs of continued study, e.g. in the form
of added notes and interlinear glosses. Schreiner presents a case study of
Vaticanus gr. 914, which is an autograph by Isidore of Kiev. He traces the
intellectual interests of this theologian and humanist by looking at Isidore’s
selection of texts, his scribal working method, and the notes that he added.
With his study Schreiner indicates a promising path in the study of scholars’
miscellanies, arguing that the combined use of palaeography, codicology and
literary studies may contribute new insights not least in cases where external
biographical information is scarce.
Finally, a recent study of miscellaneous manuscripts which saw their ori-
gin in the ninth to twelfth centuries. In I manoscritti greci miscellanei
(2007), Filippo Ronconi draws attention to the fact that two main approaches
have thus far dominated the studies of miscellaneous manuscripts: one is the
focus on the “mise-en-recueil,” how the texts are distributed in the con-
40
PONTIKOS 1992, xxxix.
41
PONTIKOS 1992, xl.
35
1 Preliminaries: Book History, Codicology, and Philology
42
RONCONI 2007, 17ff.
43
Ronconi’s book came to my attention at a very late stage, and I have thus not had the op-
portunity to benefit from his presentation in the preparation of this thesis.
44
“[D]ie Forderung, die Handschrift auch als Psychogramm des gelehrten Kopisten oder
Besitzers und Benutzers zu deuten, sollte doch nicht außer acht gelassen werden als For-
schungsziel, in dem Paläographie, Kodikologie und Literaturgeschichte zusammenwirken”
(SCHREINER 1996, 215).
36
Previous research on multitext books
37
2 Composite Books and Miscellanies
Multitext books
What expectations do modern readers generally have of books and the con-
tents of books? When we go to the bookstore and browse, we usually find
inside the covers one novel, or one biography, or a manual over one kind of
technical equipment; the book is probably written by one author or maybe by
more than one author but collaboratively, as in the collective novel. But
there are other models: a book can hold the collected works by one and the
same author, or a choice of those works (or just part of one work—when the
work in its entirety is too long to fit into just one volume). It can be a collec-
tion of essays by different authors but over a common theme. It could cover,
say, Polish poetry from the interwar period. Whenever there are more than
one text in the book, we can easily find a common denominator for the text
collection. What we do not expect to find is a book which contains one text
on computer programming, followed by one text on effective bargaining,
followed by George Orwell’s Animal Farm, followed by an enumeration of
household remedies against migraine or ulceritis. I might, as a reader, be
interested in all of these things, but they do not belong in the same book.
There was a time, however, when a book could cover subjects as diverse
as those mentioned above. More often than not the medieval handwritten
book held two or more texts. One could almost say that the monograph was
the exception. When did this happen and why? To start from the other
chronological end: yes, most likely Greek books in antiquity were mono-
graphs—by force, more or less, since the format of the book roll could not
accommodate larger quantities of text. According to Theodore Skeat a stan-
dard roll during the Greco-Roman period was made up from 20 sheets (kol-
lemata) of papyrus “glued” together.45 With the normal sheet breadth of 16–
18 cm the standard roll would thus measure 320–360 cm. This means that a
text the length of Plato’s Phaedo would fit when written in a “compressed
hand,” while a less crammed hand would comfortably yield enough space to
fit in one or two tragedies or at most three short songs of Homer.46 Thus, if
45
SKEAT 1982, 169.
46
GALLO 1986, 13. Rhetorical texts are often found written in narrower columns, i.e. requir-
38
Multitext books
several works were to be put in the same book roll, it had to be either small-
format genres, like epigrams or apophthegms, or else excerpts from longer
works.
There is, however, a curious formulation in Plutarch, Life of Antony 58,
which might have a bearing on the question of the papyrus roll being a
monograph or not. Plutarch speaks about the Pergamene library and how
“ ""#$% *#” where located there. Likewise, Tzetzes in
his Preface to Aristophanes gives some numbers for the library in Alexan-
dria, viz., “"$"#% + < =>
, *# +
< "$"#% @\.” Researchers have discussed this at
some length around the turn of the last century, but I have not found any
recent contributions to this matter.47 The numbers have generated more
comments than the categories of books mentioned. But even if the figures
themselves might be inaccurate owing to palaeographical mistakes during
transmission, there ought to be some explanation for the terms “mixed, sim-
ple, and unmixed rolls.” It is difficult to imagine what else could be referred
to besides contents. Perhaps the monograph, the one-text book (roll) was not
totally dominant after all?
If we assume that the “mixed” rolls refer to multitext books, there is still
room for different interpretations as to what they contained. Some material
evidence of multitext books from extant papyrus finds may help us out here.
Most often a roll of this kind contains a few texts—usually poems—by the
same author. Some present more than one author but similar kinds of text, as
for instance, the “garland” of Hellenistic epigrams by many different au-
thors, which Meleagros compiled.48 There are also a small number which we
might call miscellanies: rolls containing several texts or parts of texts from
various genres and by different authors. These are usually considered to have
been created for educational purposes. A well-known case is the Cairo papy-
rus, “Livre d’écolier,” from the 3rd century BCE, a roll which on its 2½ me-
ter of papyrus embraced passages from Euripides’ Phoenician Women and
Ino, from book five of the Odyssey, a couple of epigrams and New Comedy
fragments, in addition to syllabaries, lists, and a mathematical manual.49
ing more writing material since this would swell the number of blank spaces in-between the
columns. Poetry, on the other hand, could be written in volumes of smaller size than the stan-
dard format mentioned above.
47
See DEVREESSE 1954, 69; FRASER 1972, I, 329 and II, 485, with further references. The
edition of Flacelière and Chambry presents a different reading, in accordance with Reiske’s
conjecture: ""#$% *# (à peu près deux cent mille volumes). But in the
light of Tzetzes’ wording, the text had perhaps better be kept as it stands in the manuscripts.
Cf. FLACELIÈRE & CHAMBRY 1977, 157.
48
See, for instance, Kathryn Gutzwiller’s endeavor to establish the order of these epigrams in
the very books, i.e., the book rolls (GUTZWILLER 1998).
49
P. Cairo inv. 65445; Pack2 2642. “Le contenu du papyrus est d’un caractère scolaire évi-
dent; mais l’écriture n’est pas celle d’un écolier. C’est une sorte de manuel, où l’enfant pou-
vait s’exercer à lire at à compter, en même temps qu’il y trouvait diverses notions utiles à son
39
2 Composite Books and Miscellanies
In the era of book rolls there are examples of what might be seen as an-
other kind of “fore-runner” of the multitext codex. The use of wooden cases
(
^_ or "%
) for three or four rolls is attested already in classical and
Hellenistic times (for example in Xenophon, Anabasis VII, 5, 14): created to
meet the physical demands for containment these receptacles would also
entail the opportunity to gather small corpora of texts.50 We know of the
ancient grammarians’ habit to make three-partite or four-partite sets, not
only of the works of tragedians and comedians, but also of Plato’s dialogues,
to take one prose example.51 It seems that ancient and medieval source mate-
rial points to an “originally” (i.e. going back to Hellenistic libraries) alpha-
betic order within these groups of tragedies and comedies. But then again,
we also see in some manuscripts a different order—or discontinuity—within
the same groupings. According to Alain Blanchard this goes back to the
moment of transcription from scroll to codex: “Le cadre originel de ces
désordres (the corpora in non-alphabetic order) est sans doute constitué par
de petits codex, de trois et quatres unités, correspondant chacun au contenu
d’une boîte.”52
But the radical change came with the codex. At first the book format
changed from roll to single quire codex, an operation that saved writing
space and thus the expense of writing material.53 Or, inversely, you could
afford to fit another text into the same length of papyrus. The next develop-
ment of the codex form—the codex made up of several quires—gave the
advantage of accommodating larger amounts of text into the same volume.
Thus it was during late antiquity that the multitext book could rise in impor-
tance and become a common alternative to the unitary, single-text book
which had so far dominated the field.54 In his survey of early miscellaneous
codices, which are extant in more or less fragmentary state, Edoardo Crisci
shows that the miscellaneous book was in the initial stages a rather marginal
product, geographically as well as in other ways. It was modest in its graphic
and textual appearance, often written by a non-professional scribe on writing
material of less than average quality. These unpretentious books seem to
éducation” (GUÉRAUD & JOUGUET 1938, xiv). On its contents, see further GUÉRAUD & JOU-
GUET 1938, xv–xxiv.
50
On the term
^_, see ATSALOS 1971, 113–128.
51
D. L. III. 61: ` \, { @
|
} ~ <
,
#<$ #
#<. Anton-Hermann Chroust suggests that Aristophanes of Byzantium (ca. 257–
180 BCE) and others were concerned with the arrangement of the Corpus Platonicum “in
order to make it more accessible and understandable to the general public or, perhaps, in order
to display their philological, philosophical or literary talents” (CHROUST 1965, 36). The prac-
tical logistics of the library are not explicitly mentioned but must have been an important
starting-point for a librarian like Aristophanes.
52
BLANCHARD 1989, 187.
53
SKEAT 1982, 175.
54
“Al contrario degli antichi rotoli di papiro, le pergamene bizantine e quelle del Medioevo
latino sono per lo più, specie da una certa età in poi, grossi volumi contenenti vaste raccolte
delle opere di un autore, o anche miscellanee” (PASQUALI 1952, 36).
40
Multitext books
have been produced for immediately practical and multifarious use. Varied
in content but still with a clear scope, they became “uno strumento librario
efficace” for Greek and Coptic readers in early Christian surroundings,
whether for studies or work, for personal reading or collective moral edifica-
tion, for circulation of doctrinal polemics or just sharing a good reading ex-
perience with your friends.55
In his article “Dal libro unitario al libro miscellaneo” Armando Petrucci
also focuses on these early stages of the production and use of miscellaneous
books. But his definition of miscellany is more limited than Crisci’s.
Petrucci deals with the book “in which several texts of different authors are
more or less coherently juxtaposed in a single container.”56 He excludes from
his survey multitext books with only one author represented (corpora). Fur-
ther, he leaves out anthologies of excerpts or of citations, liturgical books,
so-called composite books where different texts share a common container
despite being written separately in successive phases over time, and later
copies of early miscellanies. I can see why Petrucci sets these limits, and that
they are useful for his purpose of tracing the beginnings of the miscellany.
But in a wider context, and certainly for my investigation, this strict delimi-
tation of the phenomenon would be counter-productive. The coherent mis-
cellany is but one variety of many in the area of multitext books, and if we
wish to assess how these books reflect on the reading habits and transmis-
sion of texts, we must see to the whole field. We do need to take into ac-
count these other appearances of multitext books: the school exercises, the
re-use of manuscripts, and the later additions of new text(s) to a scroll or
codex. It has to do with the expectancy of the reader (and of the scribe):
what you have seen in other places, namely in composite books, seems less
farfetched when you are up to create a “miscellany proper,” i.e. an inten-
tional copying of different authors and texts into the same container. What is
crucial is the function of the book. This functional—user’s—perspective will
also be explored in relation to Gr 8. But before we proceed to the analysis of
Gr 8 from this and other angles, we need to disentangle some of the terms
and concepts which appear in the area of multitext books.
55
CRISCI 2004, 142–144.
56
PETRUCCI 1986, 173.
41
2 Composite Books and Miscellanies
miscellaneous codex, which Atsalos defines as “un recueil [...] des ouvrages
portant sur le même sujet ou sur des sujets différents.”57 As if this were not
enough: sometimes the very same terms designate the separate parts of a text
embracing more than one volume, or individual works in an author’s produc-
tion, and also quite often individual texts and treatises inside a miscellany:
parfois, dans les manuscrits, et surtout dans les “codices miscellanei” ces
termes sont utilisés, non pour indiquer le “codex” lui-même comme matériel,
mais un ouvrage ou un traité qui y est contenu. Cette dernière notion est
presque de règle en ce qui concerne les auteurs.58
This means that from a codicological point of view the Byzantine terminol-
ogy for codices is of little help in assessing what a material might have
looked like, and neither would it seem to yield any chronological hints as to
which terms designated what at what time. This negative evidence—or ab-
sence—of a specific terminology for codices miscellanei in Byzantine writ-
ings can nevertheless be taken as an indicator of the “normality” of multitext
books. The miscellaneous contents did not make these books stand out from
other kinds of books so as to require a special terminology. They were sim-
ply “books”, looked at and treated as any other book.59
57
ATSALOS 1971, 41.
58
ATSALOS 1971, 42.
59
According to Spyridon Lambros, a few late terms—i.e., terms which appear in post-
Byzantine manuscripts—seem to denote miscellanies specifically: =\
, #<+
""#$, #""# and ""###
=#<$. They are mentioned by Lambros in
his revised version of E.M. Thompsons Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography (Thomp-
son – Lambros, %"
#' ()"
"
"* + /""* %"
# ;<
(
=
> ?
$ =#"
%. /=
, Athens 1903, 108–109).
Atsalos, however, is skeptic about their importance since they were not in general use (ATSA-
LOS 1971, 41 and 66–68). I still find it interesting that these terms do appear at this late stage
in Byzantine book culture. Even if we find only scattered examples of them, it might at any
rate hint at a rising awareness of or need for distinctions as to different kinds of books.
60
GUMBERT 2004, 20. Cf. MUNK OLSEN 1998. The terms that apply to these matters are found
in MUZERELLE 1985, § 143 (Aspects généraux du livre: le codex) and § 431 (Contenu de
volume: types de contenu), and also in the web site (http://vocabulaire.irht.cnrs.fr/vocab.htm).
42
The container and its contents
61
Module: “a separable component, frequently one that is interchangeable with others, for
assembly into units [for our purposes, read: books] of different size, complexity, or function,”
as the Random House Dictionary (rev. ed., New York 1988) puts it.
62
GUMBERT 2004, 23.
43
2 Composite Books and Miscellanies
surrounding.63 Often the last quire of a codicological unit differs from the
rest of the quires; maybe a couple of leaves are cut out, or have been added
to fit in the whole text. A proficient scribe might have gradually maximized
the amount of text which goes into the writing area, written the words more
tightly and added a line or two. If his or her calculation was correct no addi-
tion of leaves to the quire would be necessary. Another important indication
of unit endings is the presence of blank pages (which might eventually have
been filled with new text).
All these changes and irregularities might indicate that we have identified
a codicological unit, but every instance must be judged carefully on its own
premises, the crucial point being that its content forms a self-sufficient
whole.64 When the codex contains two or more codicological units it is called
a composite. Since the definition of codicological units demands that we
now have different, and autonomous, texts in the units, a composite is by
definition also a multitext codex. We will come back to these concepts in
greater detail in the analysis of Gr 8 in Chapter 3.
63
For further discussions of the booklet together with examples from English composite
manuscripts, see the articles by Pamela Robinson and by Ralph Hanna III (ROBINSON 1980;
HANNA 1986).
64
Peter Gumbert gives a full and very distinct definition: “a codicological unit is a discrete
number of quires, worked in a single operation—unless it is an enriched, enlarged or extended
unit, containing a complete text or set of texts—unless it is an unfinished, defective or de-
pendent unit.” For further clarification, see GUMBERT 2004.
44
The container and its contents
45
2 Composite Books and Miscellanies
46
The container and its contents
69
Hanna calls these postmedieval constellations “binding accidents” (HANNA 1996, 22 and
285, note 3).
70
Hausbuch refers to a book containing a person’s own correspondence and literary undertak-
ings, often in addition to selected readings from other authors, usually a manuscript created
over an extended period of time. A well-known instance is John Chortasmenos’ autograph
manuscript, Vindob. Suppl. gr. 75 (HUNGER 1969, esp. 54–63). On the term Hausbuch, see
also HUNGER 1989, 74f.
71
THORNDIKE 1946, 98–99.
72
J. P. Gumbert refers this term to Jan Willem Klein (GUMBERT 1999, 28, n. 1). But it seems
that Klein uses the term meerteksthandschrift more or less as an equivalent to verzamel-
handschrift, that is, referring to the book which is made at one sweep and not put together
from different components or on different occasions. A short text written as a separate quire is
in Klein’s terminology called a libellus: “Meerdere van zulke libelli kunnen verzameld zijn in
een convoluut [...]. Maar ook kunnen meerdere libelli gekopieerd worden tot een ‘meertekst-
handschrift’ of verzamelhandschrift [...]. Niet alleen ‘enkeltekst-handschriften’, maar ook
verschillende ‘meertekst-handschriften’ kunnen tot een convoluut worden samengebonden”
(KLEIN 1995, 26). This means that my usage of the term multitext book does not correspond
completely with Klein’s, since I let it cover both versamelhandschriften and convoluten and
all the variants in-between these.
47
2 Composite Books and Miscellanies
consists of only one codicological unit, i.e. it was made at one go, so to
speak. The heterogeneous, composite book has a multiple genesis, i.e. it
consists of at least two codicological units. The texts may be related in
content or not; in the latter case I use the term miscellany. Note that this does
not imply any statement on the codicological structure: the miscellany can be
a structurally homogeneous or heterogeneous book, the fundamental element
is that it contains texts of various (miscellaneous) contents.
48
BRINGING OUT THE STRUCTURE
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
1
The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, for example, recommends that one include under
the caption “History” information about “Schreiber, Herkunftsort, Entstehungszeit, Auftrag-
geber, Leservermerke, örtlich bestimmbare oder sprachlich vom Text der Handschrift abwei-
chende Glossen mit Zeitangabe; Besitz- und Kaufeinträge, Exlibris, Wappen, Stempel von
Vorbesitzern; Nennung in mittelalterlichen Bibliothekskatalogen; alte Ausleihvermerke; alte
Signaturen” (Richtlinien 1992, 11).
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
Library shelf-marks
The earlier shelf-marks from different library arrangements are known to us
partly from Gr 8 itself: on the spine, there is a number “49” indicating its
former incorporation in the Sparwenfeld donation to the University Library
at Uppsala. On the fore edge one may with difficulty discern another num-
ber, “16,” which remains from the manuscript’s stay in the library at El Es-
corial. The old library catalogs of El Escorial give further clues: in addition
to the placing as “olim Escorialensis A-VI-16,” yet another label, “olim Es-
corialensis -VI-19,” shows that the shelves were reorganized at some point
and that this affected our manuscript as well.2 That these two shelf-marks
should refer instead to two different manuscripts with the very same contents
is unlikely. No such duplicate manuscript has been reported as belonging to
El Escorial.
Watermarks
Apart from what the library catalogs tell us, we have only the evidence of the
codex itself, its material, its outer appearance, its texts and the notes that
have been added. There is no colophon in it, and we must thus find other
means to date the manuscript. One way is to compare the watermarks with
similar designs in dated collections.3 The basis for this is that the molds for
manufacturing paper were replaced regularly as they were worn out. Accu-
racy in dating watermarks is based on the matching of paper sheets produced
from the very same mold, and the odds are better if the patterns from both
molds (twins) are represented in the manuscript.4 At best, one may expect a
dating accuracy of ±4–5 years in relation to an identical match in the reper-
tory.5
2
In El Escorial there are several older library catalogs which mention the contents of what
was to become Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8: two of them, Esc. X.I.16 and X.I. 18, are in
Nicholas de la Torre’s hand. David Colville’s handwritten catalogs from the early 17th c.,
extant in Esc. K.I.18 and K.I.20, are the last to record Gr 8, since later cataloging work was
carried out after the fire in 1671, when our book had already disappeared from El Escorial.
3
Repertories of dated watermarks are, for example, the ones produced by BRIQUET 1968
(Br.), HARLFINGER & HARLFINGER 1974–80 (Ha.) and PICCARD 1961 (Pi.).
4
The work in the paper mill was organized so that molds were always used in pairs—while
one mold was emptied the other one was dipped into the vat and vice versa. This pair of
molds used to carry very similar but not quite identical wire figures, which is why we speak
of “twin watermarks.”
5
The estimate mentioned counts only for common-size paper, where the molds were normally
worn out in one or two years; molds for very large formats were probably not in everyday use,
and could thus last for many years. One must also keep in mind that a scribe could have had a
sheaf of paper stashed away for a while. A dating with the help of watermarks is thus more of
52
General aspects of the codex
In the case of Gr 8 we are lucky to have such a match with a dated manu-
script, and this for a watermark which is present with both its twin appear-
ances in not only one but several codicological units of Gr 8 (Ha. Boeuf 51,
left and right, in Parisinus gr. 2938). The date in the colophon of the Paris
manuscript is 1481, 20 September, the scribe there being Antonios Damilas.
One might add that Ha. Boeuf 52 (Parisinus gr. 2097) is also very similar.
This watermark is attested in a manuscript from Kydonia/Crete, 15 August
1484; scribe Michael Souliardos. It has been suggested that watermarks be
used as a means to arrange manuscripts according to scriptoria or work-
shops. This may also help in identifying scribal hands. Identical paper forms
and watermarks may, in addition to palaeographical and other evidence in
the manuscripts, indicate a similar provenance when it comes to time of ori-
gin and workshop.6 This course of action could contribute to the reconstruc-
tion of cultural connections otherwise not easily detected. As we have little
to go on when it comes to establishing the exact geographical provenance of
Gr 8, it is an important piece of information that Antonios Damilas’ scribal
activity took place on Crete.7 He held the post of notary in Candia, the main
city of Crete (today’s Iraklio), and had connections also with the workshop
of Michael Apostoles.8 Dated manuscripts in Damilas’ hand range from 1466
to 1491.
Another watermark which appears in Gr 8, though only on a couple of
leaves, is similar to Ha. Balance 41. Normally one would need a larger pro-
portion of leaves carrying the same twin watermarks and not just stray ap-
pearances, in order for them to be significant for dating. But in this case it is
still of interest since the Codex Parisinus graecus 3045, in which the water-
mark has been identified, is copied by the same scribe who wrote most of the
texts in Gr 8, Theodoros; I will return to this Paris manuscript in the discus-
sion on him, below. If we could convey further connections between Theo-
doros and other scribes who have used the same kind of paper, or even who
have worked on the same manuscripts as Theodoros, it might be possible to
establish with more accuracy the milieu where Gr 8 saw its origin. For the
time being, this can be considered wishful thinking: there is just not enough
evidence to follow up on. But as more scribes are identified in codicologi-
an approximate “post-quem” indicator, helpful when used with prudence. On dating with the
help of watermarks, see further HARLFINGER 1980; VAN DER HORST 1989.
6
HARLFINGER & HARLFINGER 1971, 32. Cf. Ralph Hanna’s wholesome reminder that stem-
matic diagrams illustrate tangible historical processes; the groupings of manuscripts in a
stemma indicate lines of actual communication, of physical contact between book producers
and model manuscripts. Thus one may in the stemmata find evidence of material literary
communities (HANNA 1996, 10). What Hanna does with the help of texts is expandable to
codicological similarities: the advantage is that one may find links to these cultural networks
also when the scribes copied different works.
7
Repertorium I, 22.
8
On Michael Apostoles, see GEANAKOPLOS 1962, 73–110, and Repertorium I, 278; for infor-
mation on his workshop, see also WITTEK 1953.
53
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
9
A number of parallels are provided by HEAWOOD 1950, especially among the figures desig-
nated “Circles,” Nos. 247–335, and “Coat of arms” with circles, Nos. 724–776. These patterns
may indicate that the paper was fabricated at mills in Genoa: “In Genoese papers made for
Spain, the watermarks most commonly met with are the coat of arms of Genoa and three
moons, known also as three O, as well as latin cross in an oval” (JAMES 1997, 53).
10
The information on Spanish vellum bindings was given to me orally, by Sten G. Lindberg.
11
“Der typische Escorial-Einband [...] ist gekennzeichnet durch mittel- bis dunkel-, bisweilen
auch rotbraunes Leder auf Pappe, seltener auf Holz, mit schlichtem, in Einzelheiten wenig
variierendem Blinddruck: ein oder zwei Filetenrahmen meist mit Blattstempeln in den Ecken;
in der Mitte der San Lorenzo-Rost, bei einem Teil der Einbände von einer Krone überragt,
umgeben von einem Rankenkranz; am vergoldeten Schnitt mitunter eine kleinere oder eine
grössere Krone eingraviert” (MORAUX 1976, 144f.).
12
This is also indicated by the fact that while codd. Ups. gr. 2 and 5, both olim Escorialenses,
have similar covers and watermarks on added blank folia, they are clearly of different date
54
General aspects of the codex
are still the remains of two pairs of thin leather tying straps. There are no
decorations on the cover, other than the olim shelf-mark, 49, on the upper
end of the spine.
Foliation
In addition to the unnumbered protective leaves (iii + iii), Roman numerals
in pencil have been added to the pinakes, ff. I–III; the rest of the codex has a
foliation in Arabic numerals in the upper outer corner of recto pages, ff. 1–
336. This foliation in ink was made in El Escorial by the scribe Nicholas de
la Torre (v. infra), who also gives the corresponding folio number for each
entry in his pinakes. Some inconsistencies need to be mentioned: f. 12 is
followed by ff. 12a and 12b. On f. 6v a “6” and on f. 7r an “8” have been
added in the lower margin; on f. 12ar, 12av, and 12br the number “7” has
been added, and on f. 12bv we once again find a number “8” added.13 There
is one leaf between ff. 34 and 35 numbered 34a by a modern hand. Thus, the
total number of leaves is 348.
There are no traces of any original quire numbering (in Byzantium this
was the customary way of keeping the leaves in order). However, since the
book block has gone through a rather severe trimming at binding or rebind-
ing, we cannot rule out the possibility of quire numbers having been lost in
the process.
Scribes
Disregarding pen trials, notes, and other later additions, the hands of four
different scribes may be discerned in Gr 8. One of them is responsible for
99% of the writing in Gr 8, and since his hand turns up in every codicologi-
cal unit except the first (which was added to the codex at a later stage), it is
appropriate to describe it thoroughly here. The other scribes are briefly pre-
sented here, but I will deal with the characteristic features of their hands in
the codicological units where they come to the fore (U1, U4, and U15). The
scribes are introduced here in consecutive order as they appear in the manu-
script.
The scribe of the pinax on ff. I–II, has since long been identified as
# , alias Nicholas de la Torre.14 The ensuing two pages
and provenance. All six codices which Johan Gabriel Sparwenfeld purchased in Spain have
matching vellum covers in the same design (Ups. graeci 2–3, 5–8).
13
This rather complex quire (Q3) is presented in more detail in the discussion of unit 2 (U2)
below.
14
GRAUX & MARTIN 1889, 34. For my presentation of Nicholas de la Torre, I rely mainly on
Gregorio de Andrés’ comprehensive biography from 1969. Andrés includes several illustra-
tions with Torre’s hand; see further Repertorium I, 319, and GRAUX & MARTIN 1891, plate
XVII, No. 59.
55
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
were inaccessible heretofore, the leaves being glued together, but it is now
clear that they carry an earlier draft by the same scribe. I may add that the
foliation and one or two headings seem to be Nicholas’ additions too (e.g. on
f. 200r). Nicholas de la Torre, was born on Crete—in Candia, Gregorio de
Andrés conjectures—around 1535–40, moved from Crete to Padua/Venice in
1559, where he came to work together with Andreas Darmarios, among oth-
ers. In 1564 Nicholas was commissioned by the bishop of Salamanca (and
later Segovia) Diego de Covarrubias y Leiva to copy some Greek books for
him, books which belonged to different Spanish humanists, one of them
Diego Hurtado de Mendoza. Accepting the assignment Nicholas moved to
Segovia, where he also met Ana Sanchez who became his wife. During the
years that followed he moved around finding patrons now in Paris, now in
Venice, and then eventually found his way back to Spain, where in 1569 he
had the position as university scribe in Salamanca.
In these years Philip II spared no efforts in founding and furnishing his li-
brary in El Escorial with rare books collected from all over Europe. He soon
realized that he would need a skilful Greek calligrapher who could create
copies of important works and transcribe the illegible or defective ones into
more usable books. In addition, the scribe must be well versed in Greek lit-
erature, to be able to compose indices to all the Escorial manuscripts. The
choice fell on Nicholas de la Torre who took up his new post as "#>
$<}, or royal secretary, in March 1573. As for his work on the indi-
ces and catalogs in El Escorial, we will come back to this in the discussion
of codicological unit 1, below.
Apart from the pinakes that were added at El Escorial, there is one scribe,
who dominates all other units of Gr 8. Sofía Torallas Tovar proposed that his
script looks very much like Nicholas Sagundino’s (Repertorium I, 316).15 I
am not inclined to agree, considering the differences in both the details and
the overall appearance. But in addition Torallas Tovar puts forward another
hand for comparison, of one “Theodoros,” whom we can find in Reperto-
rium II, 176. To my mind, we have ample reason to believe that this Theo-
doros is the actual scribe of all but a few pages of Gr 8. I have favorably
compared the handwriting in Gr 8 with a microfilm copy of Codex Parisinus
graecus 3045, which is where we meet with the scribe Theodoros’ own
colophon. On f. 172r it reads:
+ @
# = ^ "$"# @ $% (
)
_ > ^ = ... @
On the second line of the colophon the ink is somewhat smeared; thence the
loss of the second segment of Theodoros’ name. A name which would fit
with the short lacuna might be “$,” i.e., Theodoros from Kyzikos, a
15
TORALLAS TOVAR 1994, 225.
56
General aspects of the codex
city on the southern side of the Sea of Marmara, but this remains an assump-
tion until we meet with further evidence.16 With a place-name in the genitive,
one would perhaps also expect a title of office here, as in “bishop of (Kyzi-
kos).” Another possibility would be to surmise Theodoros’ father’s name
here; a name that would fit the lacuna would, for instance, be Kyrikos
( % $ – Theodoros, son of K.). The Anno Mundi 6996 above
equals 1488 CE. Another date, 1486 CE, is given on f. 5r in the Paris manu-
script:
@
(
) @ $
Apparently the Paris manuscript is also a composite one, worked out over
time. It contains on ff. 1–3 (written in another hand than Theodoros’) what is
said to be letters by Zonaras, but are actually the collected }#, or sur-
vey of chapters, of the work @ $ X
Y * Y [#* by Michael
Glykas.17 F. 4 is blank, and the date on the following leaf was added by
Theodoros. Then, anew, on f. 6 Theodoros has started out with the full text
of Michael Glykas’ work (though still going under the name of Zonaras).
The text ends on f. 172r, where it is followed by the aforementioned colo-
phon with Theodoros’ name in it. Theodoros is the scribe responsible also
for ff. 173r–192r, this time presenting a mathematical treatise.
One more manuscript is supposed to be in Theodoros’ handwriting, the
Sinaiticus Graecus 1677 from the Monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Si-
16
Marie Vogel’s and Victor Gardthausen’s note on this scribe is totally misleading: they seem
to have confused this fifteenth-century scribe—who copied Par. 3045—with Theodoros
Skoutariotes who was metropolitan of Kyzikos in the 1270s (VOGEL&GARDTHAUSEN 1909,
138, n. 8). Also Karl Krumbacher has written oddly about a Theodoros, bishop of Kyzikos,
and his contribution to Cod. Marc. gr. 407 and to Cod. Athous 3758, as if this person might be
another than the Skoutariotes who once owned the Cod. Marc. 407 (KRUMBACHER 1897,
390). As August Heisenberg claimed that the author of the so-called Synopsis Sathas in the
Marcianus manuscript would be Theodoros Skoutariotes himself, Herbert Hunger concluded
that “<h>iemit fällt auch die von Krumbacher (390) behandelte Chronik eines ‘Theodoros,
Bischofs von Kyzikos’ weg, da der Cod. Athous 3758 die Synopsis Sathas enthält” (HUNGER
1978, I 477; cf. HEISENBERG 1901, 5–16). Though Alexander Kazhdan has questioned this
attribution (ODB, s.v. Skoutariotes), Ruth Macrides seems to keep to the hypothesis (2003,
64, n. 11, and 69f.). However we choose to solve the question of authorship of the Synopsis
Sathas, it is still imperative that we sort out Theodoros, the fifteenth-century scribe of the
manuscripts Gr 8, Par. 3045, and Sinait. 1677, from these discussions.
There is also another person known under the name “Theodoros of Kyzikos,” who was bishop
there in the 10th c. and is known as an epistolographer (ODB, s.v. Theodore of Kyzikos): of
course, he is to be kept out of this discussion just as adamantly.
17
This work is either referred to as a collection of didactic letters from Michael Glykas to
various addressees within clergy and government, or as a theological treatise, “95 Lyseis zu
Aporien der Hl. Schrift,” as Hunger puts it (HUNGER 1978, I 235). In Sophronios Eustratiades’
edition the “ #< }#
^ # ” are reproduced in vol. 1, pp. –".
57
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
nai.18 This codex contains Aristotle’s Rhetoric (ff. 1–74v) with concomitant
commentaries (ff. 79r–244r Anonymi Comm. in Rhet.; ff. 244r–247v Fragm.
Comm. in Rhet.; ff. 250r–283r Stephani Comm. in Rhet.).19 As I have not
examined this manuscript myself, I rely on Diether R. Reinsch’s inspection
of it for the Aristotle Archive in Berlin. He notes that some corrections and
lemmata have been added by another, contemporary hand (ff. I, IIrv, 75–78v,
248–249v, 283v–305, I–II.20 So far, only one more scribe has been identified
in manuscripts which, according to the stemma, belong to the same family as
Sinaiticus 1677: Michael Souliardos copied the Rhetorica of Vaticanus
Graecus 1326.21 In trying to reconstruct a cultural network around Theo-
doros, this might be another clue to which persons may have belonged there.
As I mentioned above, the scribe Michael Souliardos also turns up in the
discussion of watermarks used by Theodoros. Possibly one could get further
illumination on scribal networks through this kind of investigation, compar-
ing the transmission of related texts with facts from the physical text carriers,
such as watermarks in the manuscripts, identified scribes, contemporary
owners, et cetera. To follow up on this is not within the limits of the present
study, but I believe it could be a rewarding path to take. That Michael Sou-
liardos worked in Crete22 is not uninteresting in this connection, if we also
consider that Theodoros’ manuscript ended up in the Monastery of St. Cath-
erine in Sinai: this monastery had a daughter monastery with the same name
in Crete (in Candia/Iraklio), and the contacts between the two communities
were close.23 The monastery school of St. Catherine’s in Candia was for a
long time the leading Greek educational center on the island.24 This was the
fertile soil where many Cretan scribes started out and were introduced to
Greek literary tradition.
The third scribe of Gr 8, “co-scribe A,” has only contributed a few pages,
ff. 104r, 107r, 109r and 112r (in addition to these also the headline of f. 88r
and line 6 on f. 106v). It has been proposed that these leaves too were copied
by Theodoros and that he was only trying out another style, varying his usual
18
Dieter Harlfinger mentions the scribe Theodoros Ky...kos as responsible for the Sinaiticus
1677 in his survey of “Neuidentifizierte Kopisten griechischer Aristoteles-Handschriften der
Renaissance” (HARLFINGER 1971, 413).
19
See further KASSEL 1971, 13 and 56.
20
I am grateful to Prof. Dr. Diether R. Reinsch, who kindly sent me his codicological notes on
this manuscript.
21
KASSEL 1971, 14; stemma on p. 61.
22
To reconstruct precisely the whereabouts of Michael Souliardos is difficult, but he seems to
have spent the 1470s and 80s mainly in Crete and other parts of Venetian-dominated Greece
(Kydonia/Chania, Methone and Nauplion). In the 1490s, he transferred his activities to Italy
(cf. Repertorium I 286 and II 392).
23
One may compare with what happened to the Greek books which were donated by the
scribe Maximos Margounios to the Monastery of St. Catherine of Candia in Crete: “Of the
manuscripts Margounios bequeathed to the monks of Crete, five to seven [...] got to the parent
monastery of Mt. Sinai” (GEANAKOPLOS 1968, 78).
24
GEANAKOPLOS 1962, 46.
58
Criteria for discerning codicological units
way of writing.25 This is unlikely, I think: the differences in letter forms and
ligatures between Theodoros’ hand and the one responsible for the afore-
mentioned pages are considerable and stable.26 It is more plausible that
Theodoros had a colleague, or perhaps an apprentice, with whom he worked
at times. This hypothesis is corroborated by the Paris manuscript, Parisinus
graecus 3045, where this same scribe has copied not only ff. 1–3, as I men-
tioned earlier, but also everything from f. 71r, line 5, to f. 84v: once more he
has obviously seconded Theodoros inside the middle of a text.
The fourth scribe of Gr 8, “co-scribe B,” writes in Latin only. We find his
contribution in the bilingual part of the codex, ff. 308–323. The Latin text is
accompanied by an interlinear Greek translation in Theodoros’ hand, but I
hesitate to think Theodoros capable of writing Latin in such a fine Italian
humanist hand; I am more inclined to suppose that an indigenous or at least
experienced Latin scribe wrote those texts.27
25
Nigel Wilson, viva voce, who on his visit to Uppsala in 1998 briefly inspected the manu-
script.
26
See further the discussion of codicological unit 4, below.
27
As the Latin hand is present only in codicological unit 15 (U15) in Gr 8, I deal with the
specifics of it in connection with the presentation of U15, below.
28
ROBINSON 1980, 47f.: features mentioned correspond to the criteria A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I,
K, and M. In addition she brings up the catchword as a criterion, if it runs only within the
“booklet” and there is none on the verso of last quire. As Byzantine manuscripts do not usu-
ally carry catchwords, I omit this criterion. GUMBERT 1989, 6–7: defines a caesura as a quire
boundary “qui est en même temps une limite de texte, de main et/ou de quelque autre aspect
59
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
C applies chiefly to the end of a unit, but may also come into question at the
beginning of a unit (though for other reasons).
codicologique” and—transposed into the terms of the criterion list—exemplifies this with A,
F, I, K, L, and also another trait: different language). GUMBERT 1995, 61: mentions, in addi-
tion to “a change in text,” the following traits: “for instance a change in hand, in watermark,
in ruling practice, in quire signatures, in style of decoration, in number of lines”, i.e. A, I, J,
K, L, M. Further down, p. 63, he also draws attention to “short and imperfect” quires and
blank pages, i.e. C and D, and also to a dating at the end of a text. KWAKKEL 2002,13f.: the
main indicator of a production unit is said to be the catchword, or rather, the lack of one (but
this criterion is more relevant for those working with manuscripts outside the Byzantine tradi-
tion). Criteria corresponding to C, K, and L are also brought forward by Kwakkel.
60
Criteria for discerning codicological units
29
In these instances—exceptions to the rule— Gumbert refers to the units as being defective
or extended. See further GUMBERT 2004, 30–33.
61
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
another; instead we are forced to give attention to each part on its own
terms.30
Quires: Q1, a binion from which the first leaf has been cut out. Roman
numerals in pencil for ff. I–III.
Paper: Western paper of good quality, present solely in this unit; no wa-
termark visible.
Justification: Irregular, leaving little marginal space; writing area ca. 120
x 75 mm; 19 lines per page on f. Ir–v, 14 lines on f. IIr, 21 lines on f. IIv, 5
lines on f. IIIr.
Scribe: Nicholas de la Torre.
Texts: Nos. 1–2. Pinakes, i.e. tables of contents, for the whole book.
Decoration: Entries in black ink with plain red initials. Small black wisps
with a dot mark the end of some items, a larger one of the same design in red
on f. IIr. Also on f. IIr a floriate ornament in red.
Condition: From the upper margin of f. I a thin strip of paper has been
cut away. The last two leaves of the binion, which used to be glued together,
have been separated; residues of glue remain.
Unit demarcation traits: A – quire boundary and text boundary coincide
both initially and at the end of the unit; C – the number of leaves in the quire
(binion) differs from the more common quaternion, which, as we will see
from the other units, dominates the rest of the manuscript.
30
An example of a problematic unit boundary is discussed in unit 11, below.
31
Cf. ANDRÉS 1968, 38 (No. 66). The first catalog, X. I. 17, was produced by Torre in 1577.
The other two, X. I. 16 and X. I. 18, are from 1588 and 1600 (ANDRÉS 1968, 9).
32
See ANDRÉS 1969, 53–59 and 103–106.
62
Codicological unit 1 (U1) – the pinax
rial. But during his absense the terms were changed. When he returned to the
library in early 1576 he found himself no longer receiving 1½ real for each
sheet (pliego), as agreed: now he was down to 1 real per sheet. What is
worse, since his immediate superior Antonio Gracián had assigned him to
create the indices, it now took him more than a day to finish just one sheet,
since he had to read through the whole volumes before excerpting the au-
thors and titles for each of them. As his usual rate was four sheet a day, he
was used to making six reales a day, so the new work duty was obviously an
economic drawback.
Finally a solution to the practical matters was found, and Nicholas de la
Torre spent much of the year 1576 on cataloging duties for the library. One
of the items in the library was the manuscript that we are now engrossed in,
Gr 8, and as this was devoid of many of its headlines while containing a
multitude of texts, it must have been one of Nicholas’ less agreeable assign-
ments to catalog it. First he had to identify its contents in detail and prepare
the pinax. We will presently turn to the contents of the pinax in Gr 8, but
first a couple of comments on the physical appearance of the quire. There is
no way to tell if something has gone missing on the leaf which was cut out at
the front of the binion. If it was blank, the scribe may have cut it out himself,
using it for other purposes. Or it may still have been part of the manuscript,
holding some information which betrayed its being the property of El Esco-
rial. In that case it is reasonable to suppose that the leaf was removed at the
same time as the small paper strip in the upper margin of f. Ir, because that is
the place where El Escorial library shelf-marks generally are inscribed. The
excised strip bears witness to an illegal book transaction somewhere along
the line.33
As appears from the reproduction of the first page of Nicholas’ pinax, the
script slopes to the right. His hand can be described as a bit turgid with the
size of letters varying and the accents prolonged. Conspicuous traits are, for
example, the “superscript” epsilon in , $, ¡
\, etc; the chi put at an
upright angle, as in
_# on f. Ir; and the $-ligature. Iota subscriptum
is indicated.34
33
Of the codices Escorialenses purchased by Sparwenfeld at least one, Codex Ups. gr. 2, still
contains this kind of information on the first folio (at the top of f. 1r one can read II 20, i.e.
the former El Escorial shelf-mark). Consequently, the incision was probably made not by
Sparwenfeld himself but before his purchase; perhaps the vendor was covering up a prior
theft.
34
The style of Nicholas de la Torre’s hand was obviously appreciated in his time, considering
the distinguished orders he received from patrons in more than one country. Gregorio de
Andrés shares the opinion: “Uno de los más diestros calígrafos cretenses de mediados del
siglo XVI, comparable por su bella escritura con Angel Vergecio (del cual vino el dicho
popular en Francia de «escribir como un angel»), fue Nicolás Turrianos, o de la Torre, una de
las más elegantes plumas del Renacimiento” (ANDRÉS 1969, 14).
63
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
64
Codicological unit 1 (U1) – the pinax
Text NEW PINAX, ff. Ir–IIr. Fol. OLD PINAX, ff. IIv and
No. Leaf numbers are given only in the new subsequent (unnumbered)
pinax Ì page
35
It would also be beneficial to compare this material with some of the pinakes which Nicho-
las de la Torre has added to other El Escorial manuscripts, thus evaluating the scribe’s idio-
syncrasies on a larger scale. But this goes beyond the scope of my thesis.
36
Normal abbreviations in the text have been resolved without comment and names are repre-
sented with initial capital letters, for the sake of readability.
65
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
+ @
#¤
\_
¯ µ_ .
º
¯¨ ¼ + <
> ¾ $ ,
>
> ¿
, ¼ + ,
>
"#
,
> <,
¡¯, ·##
.
44 ¢ #< 232. ¢ #<.
45 # > À" \_
232. # > À" \_
>
^ <# %
$.
>
^
<# %
$.
48 (f. IIr) }
’ #}"
. 238. }.
°_¤# ~ ²%
.
50 µ >
’ #}"
. 247. µ :~
51 °_¤#
^ ²%
#$
253. (next page)
$_ @
¯
|= _
%
¬
♣
$_ @
³ _
´
¬ # % |= :~
# % |= :~
53 £ ®_¯ , ·##
. 254. £ ®_¯.
µ\% "# .
62 £
_
# , 281. £
_ $
·##
.
# .
67– # $
^ <# ¡
\% 286.
70 @
#$.
℘:~
73 µ\
"#\% @
# :~ 302.
71 <$ $
Á^ Â ^37 297.
71 <$ ¡
\ ¥%¬ 298.
72 }
^ < >
> 299.
#<=\
#
¤
$ :
The first item of Nicholas’ pinax, Text 3 Stephanites and Ichnelates, gets a
six-line description, whereas most items are described in just a few words.
One could perhaps suspect that this indicates a special interest in this first
piece on Nicholas’ part. But considering that the Stephanites text never had
its rubricated headline filled in (f. 1), the explanation is probably that Nicho-
las simply chose to copy the first paragraph of the text more or less as it
stands.
Nicholas de la Torre usually puts the author’s name first even if the head-
line of the text has the words in another order, e.g. Text 5 (Isocrates Oration
1), where />
]
=
< ^ >"
is given on f. 88r. The attribu-
tion of Text 7 (Gregory of Nazianzos Ep. 114) to Basil the Great will be
discussed in Chapter 4: suffice it here to notice that Nicholas just copies the
headline as Theodoros has it on f. 98v. The Hippocrates letters and the
Anacharsis ones (Texts 8–9) are treated as one single item in the pinax.
37
The last three items (equaling Texts 71–72) were written in a different, brownish ink, which
has dissolved a bit and discolored the paper. The same goes for the correction of @
#¤
into #\
, above (Text 27).
66
Codicological unit 1 (U1) – the pinax
From unit 4 the only text selected for the pinax is Text 11, Paul of Aegina’s
Medical Compendium. On the whole it seems that Nicholas tends to ignore
the anonymous texts, though not always, as will be seen as we proceed
through his pinax. Three texts from unit 5 turn up in the pinax: Texts 16
(Gregory Thaumatourgos), 20 (Manuel Christonymos), and 21 (Leonardo
Bruni). These happen to be the three which have the largest floriate initials
in the unit.
Plethon’s On Virtues (Text 23) is put as an item of its own. Then Nicholas
takes Plethon’s treatise Reply to Scholarios, Text 24, and bundles it together
with Bessarion’s letters to Plethon’s sons, to Michael Apostoles, and to An-
dronikos Kallistos, Text 25. That the treatise is taken for a letter here is un-
derstandable: in Gr 8 the headline says %<$
^
^ >
<
> _# but only the rhetorical “preface” of this treatise is
included. Usually the sender of a letter is put in the nominative while the
author of a text is in the genitive, something which Nicholas obviously did
not take notice of or think important. After Bessarion’s letters the one from
Nicholas Sagundino to Andronikos Kallistos stands as an item of its own
(Text 26).
Text 27, Libanios’ Declamation 26, was put up as a letter at first, but the
scribe then changed @
#¬ to #\
. The Chrysostom item (Text 28)
ends with the phrase ·##
, which ought to point to the otherwise
unknown text introduced with
^
^ by Theodoros (f. 189v), inc.
67
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
@
*
"*' $ < "
", <
""<
{,
"{, < `
">, < ">, + "=. This time there
was no need for a longer description due to the work having no title (cf. Text
3 Stephanites, above). So perhaps this matter actually interested Nicholas; at
least he must have thought it worthwhile to be able to find this rhetorical
exposition.
That Nicholas chose to mention the Decalogue (Text 44) is more peculiar.
One would think that the Ten Commandments should be well known enough
to function rather as a page filler. Why pick up this text and not the Prayer to
the Theotokos, for example (Text 33)? The fact that the preceding eight
leaves were left without a rubricated title and therefore remained unidenti-
fied by Nicholas (they contain twenty letters by Theophylact Simokates,
Text 43) may have come into play here. One can easily imagine how Nicho-
las after 16 pages finally finds something he recognizes, and thus, puts that
item in the pinax.
The list of kings (Text 45) also lacks its headline. Wishing to have this
item in his pinax, the scribe thus had to make up his own characterization:
`"{" X< `$ )"
<
=
.
The florilegium on ff. 238–247 (Text 48) was considered interesting
enough to put in the pinax, and here as well Nicholas had to supply the text
with a title: "
# ’ X#=`
. This corresponds with the mean-
ing but not the wording in the upper margin of f. 238, where a reader has
added _¤
\#
#}"
} #<.38 This text is
followed by another anonymous item, a lexicon (Text 50), which Nicholas
saw fit to include in his survey.
Text 51, an elegy on the city of Athens by Michael Choniates, )
" +
X)! X"
" > , is the only one that Nicholas
equips with a floriate decoration: was it the highlight for him perhaps?
On f. 254 yet an anonymous text begins (Text 53). However, Theodoros
did spare a line for a rubricated title, so perhaps he knew more about it than
we do. Nicholas chose to describe it as %+ ?)* X
, + "=.
After having passed over 24 leaves in silence—despite the fact that one of
the texts covers as much as 33 pages (56 Theodoret Cure of the Pagan
Maladies)—he then includes the listings of patriarchates, metropolises, etc.
(Text 62).
At first Nicholas de la Torre appears to have planned to end the pinax
with the letters by Basil et al. (Texts 67–70). A rubricated wreath in the mid-
dle of the page (looking like a larger elaboration of the small wisp we can
see at the end of some lines on f. I) now seems mistakenly put there, with
another few text lines crowded around it. The subsequently added item,
/
`"
"=", now surrounds and encrouches on the
decoration; this text (Text 73) begins on f. 302. And then, as an afterthought,
38
I.e.: _¤
¤ \#
’ #}"
¨
}$% Á #<.
68
Codicological unit 1 (U1) – the pinax
69
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
39
Cf. the appearance of the title with a band-shaped headpiece on the first page of U5 (f. 128)
and a similar solution in U4 (f. 104). In U3 there is only a one-line title in red and a large
ornamented initial (f. 88). In U6, the scribe uses two lines for the rubricated title but decorates
it with flowers in the upper margin and at the end of line 2.
70
Codicological unit 2 (U2), ff. 1–87
ent in the next quires. At the end of U2—most prominently in the last binion
where the writing area is extended—the trimming of the leaves has reached
into the writing area and cut off part of the uppermost text line.
Demarcation traits in relation to previous unit: A – a new text is initi-
ated on first recto; B – the first few leaves are very worn and darkened; J –
different paper; K – different scribe; L – different mise-en-page; M – differ-
ent style of decoration; O – change in textual contents (obviously, since U1
is a table of contents for the whole book).
Demarcation traits in relation to ensuing unit: A – main text ends on
the penultimate leaf of U2; B – last verso is darker, more soiled and worn
than the preceding leaves; C – last quire is a binion; E – the script is ele-
gantly compressed towards the end of the Stephanites text, the scribe slowly
enlarging the writing area one line at a time over several folios so as not to
make the change show; F – last leaf was originally left blank; G – on the
formerly blank leaf at the end a new text has been added some 50 years later,
in the form of a personal document including a blessing and some pen trials.
A reconstruction of Q2–Q3
To understand the design of the first two quires of Stephanites, Q2–Q3, we
need to reconstruct the procedure step by step, as illustrated in the figures A–
C below. The scribe starts out with one ternion and one quinion (figure A).
This is, as I just said, not common procedure. But let us suppose that he had
two quaternions cut and ready, waiting to be inscribed. Somehow they got
disarranged and when he put them in order again he happened to put one leaf
extra in the second bundle instead of the first. So the scribe writes his text
71
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
with the leaves in this order and then goes on using quaternions for the rest
of the text.
What happens later on is that the outside bifolia of the quinion meet with
wear and tear, and eventually a couple of leaves (ff. x and y) at the end of Q3
may have come loose. They disappear from the book, leaving us with a text
lacuna (figure B) just before Q4.40
No thread can now hold the first two leaves of this quire in place (I have
chosen to give them the alternative numbers of “6a” and “6b” here, since this
shows their logical placing with regard to the textual contents), so they be-
come loose leaves. By restoration or rebinding these two loose leaves are
glued together, so that the stub of one of them is still visible in-between. By
mistake, they are now placed at the end of the quire and not between ff. 6
and 7. That is how they got their present foliation as 12a and 12b, which is
actually misleading to the reader. These extra numbers were added recently,
in pencil, whereas Nicholas de la Torre, on the contrary, deliberately re-
frained from including them in the consecutive numbering when he was
foliating the rest of the manuscript. Stains of damp, which are more pro-
nounced in Q2 and on ff. 12a and 12b but fainter in the rest of Q3, reveal
that these two leaves kept their original place for a considerable period of
time. The numbers added in the lower margin (a number “6” on f. 6v, an “8”
on ff. 7r and 12bv, a “7” on ff. 12ar, 12av, and 12br) show that the person who
did that had figured out the right sequence of the remaining leaves. The Es-
corial scribe Nicholas de la Torre is probably responsible for those numbers
as well, since he obviously did detect the displacement, not foliating the
misplaced leaves with the rest (figure C).41
In its present state Gr 8 is so tightly bound, that it is not really possible to
see whether ff. 12a–12b is sewn in together with the preceeding leaves or
whether this new “singulion” has simply been glued on to f. 12. But the ex-
planation suggested above seems to account for what is observable in the
manuscript here and now.
40
The existence of a lacuna in the text was acknowledged already in the 1780 edition of the
prolegomena which was carried out on the basis of Gr 8 (Prolegomena ad librum 1780, 42).
This dissertation was published as complementary to Sebastian Gottfried Starcke’s 1697
edition which does not include the prolegomena. At the Uppsala disputation Pehr Fabian
Aurivillius acted as respondent while professor Johannes Floderus was the praeses: either of
them may be the one who in fact produced the edition.
41
The shape of the numbers does not contradict this; it is consistent with Torre’s numbering
in the upper margin and in the pinax.
72
Codicological unit 2 (U2), ff. 1–87
A “6a” “6b”
1 2 3 4 5 6 12a 12b 7 8 9 10 11 12 x y
B “6a” “6b”
1 2 3 4 5 6 12a 12b 7 8 9 10 11 12 x y
C “6a” “6b”
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12a 12b
73
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
Below are given the incipit and explicit for the textual joints where ff. 12a
and 12b, correctly posited, would fit in:
F. 6v, expl.:
( above last
) [...
F. 12ar (“6a” recto), inc.: ...]
74
Codicological unit 2 (U2), ff. 1–87
75
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
breaks off to the end of § 9a Puntoni’s edition counts 15 lines (i.e. about one
page in Theodoros’ hand). §§ 9b + 10a occupy 30 lines in Puntoni, while §
10b occupies 18 lines. This means that if Gr 8 complied fully with P2O2M2
only one leaf would have gone missing. We can compare this with variations
in other groups of the manuscript tradition; in Sjöberg’s group VI
(K2F2E1E3) the passage from §§ 9b–10a is omitted in three of the four
manuscripts, while the fourth, contaminated, E3 includes these paragraphs.
Another instance of “contamination” or at least of Gr 8 not corresponding
with the group which according to Sjöberg’s investigation is most closely
related to it may be adduced: in Stephanites chapter V Gr 8 has the para-
graph sequence 116a+b, 117, 118a+b+c, while P2O2M2 have these para-
graphs transposed into the sequence 116a, 118b+c, 116b, 117, 118a. As Sjö-
berg puts it: “U folgt in diesem Kapitel der -Gruppe.”45 The practical side of
the problem is not to be ignored either. If we were to assume that Gr 8 fol-
lowed the wording of the rest of the group in Prolegomenon III, we would be
forced to explain why the scribe should have suddenly chosen a ternion + a
single leaf for this part of his text, instead of using even quaternions as is
customary. I consider it far more likely that Gr 8 did include all the para-
graphs the way they stand in Puntoni’s edition, thus not corresponding with
the wording of P2O2M2.
45
SJÖBERG 1962, 76, n. 26.
76
Codicological unit 2 (U2), ff. 1–87
last quire of U2. The reason is obvious: he did not plan to add further texts
after Stephanites, but simply wanted to end this unit (or even independent
book?) with as little waste of paper as possible. The Stephanites text comes
to an end exactly on the last line of a verso page: professional work, in short.
That one leaf, f. 87r–v, was left blank thereafter is not necessarily the result of
oversight on the scribe’s behalf, since the extra leaf protects the text from
attrition.
It is clear that U2 is complete (but for the two leaves in Q3) and yet its
execution has been done in two phases, leaving us with a so-called extended
unit.46 What explanation could there be for the kind of break in the copying
work visible at f. 76? One hypothesis (a) could be that the scribe simply ran
out of paper. Maybe he was visiting somewhere to copy the work and did not
bring enough material with him to finish the text. So he had to return to the
library, or whatever place was harboring the model manuscript, on another
occasion. Another possible explanation (b) could be that he did write a com-
plete text in the first go, but that the last two quires were then ruined or got
lost somehow, since the work lay unbound in bundles. That would have
forced him to rewrite the end of the text once more.
But there are some complications to consider. If we look at the passage in
the Stephanites text where Theodoros had arrived when he broke off at f. 75,
we find that it is in the story about the King and the Parrot, i.e. chapter IX,
§ 133b in Puntoni’s edition. According to Sjöberg the last passage that the
A-recension manuscripts include is the beginning of chapter IX (§§ 132 and
133a). The rest of chapter IX and the following chapters X–XV, were never
part of Symeon Seth’s translation. § 133b, which includes the Parrot story, is
therefore not present in the A-recension. The same paragraph is lacking also
in the B -recension, with a few exceptions,47 and about one of the manu-
scripts of the B-group Sjöberg writes: “In E3 fehlt der §133b bis auf die
letzte Zeile dieses Abschnittes.”48 The rest of the B-recension manuscripts
include § 133b. It is not unthinkable—this would present us with yet an hy-
pothesis (c)—that Theodoros at first had at his disposal a model manuscript
which lacked the final chapters of Stephanites. Using that model he got as
46
The terminology for units which have been interfered with in different ways is elaborated
by Gumbert (GUMBERT 2004, 30–33). A codicological unit can grow by various means: by
enrichment, if a new layer or guest text is added on the original leaves; by enlargement, if a
limited number of leaves are added and they “do not fundamentally change the quire struc-
ture” (p. 42); by extension, if “a substantial amount of matter – at least one quire – has been
added” (loc.cit.). To distinguish between the last two categories (the enlarged and the ex-
tended unit) seems to me almost too pedantic. To my mind the quire structure is changed
when you put in an extra leaf or a couple of leaves somewhere: putting a terminological divid-
ing line at precisely one quire extra seems meaningless and complicated. I would like to sug-
gest that we use the latter term, extended unit, for both categories since they still need to be
qualitatively explained in each case.
47
SJÖBERG 1962, 77, n. 31: “P3P4 und A4 enthalten den §133b. In A4 fehlt doch durch Blatt-
ausfall der §133b, 17–30.”
48
SJÖBERG 1962, 77, n. 32.
77
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
far as the beginning of chapter IX (Q2–11, or ff. 1–75 in Gr 8). Then he had
to replenish the text with the help of another manuscript offering him the rest
of ch. IX and chs. X–XV. That this was done at a later stage (when he had
already used up all the paper carrying the “oxhead” watermark) would ex-
plain why the leaves of the preceding quires got worn and soiled, waiting
unbound on some shelf.
One may also speculate whether the paper used in Q12–13 corresponds to
the kind in another manuscript by Theodoros’ hand, Parisinus 3045 (copied
in 1486 and 1488). Because of the octavo-format of Gr 8 (which splits the
watermarks and makes them end up folded at the spine) and the considerable
trimming of the leaves, it is difficult to establish whether this one instance of
the watermark in Q13 is the exact replica of the Parisian counterpart (Ha.
Balance 41; cf. above, p. 53). But it seems very likely from the look of the
remainders. If that is so, then we could perhaps infer that there was actually
a delay of a few years until the last two quires of Stephanites were added to
Gr 8. That the Stephanites text in Gr 8, which primarily belongs to the
B-group, in some places seems more closely related to the B -group49 re-
veals further the complex and contaminated textual transmission, and might
also be taken as an indication that the third hypothesis (c) is reasonable. This
is not the place to actually prove this point, since I am not thoroughly inves-
tigating the whole manuscript tradition or aiming at an edition. I still think it
is fruitful to raise the questions and see where this kind of reasoning may
lead us.
Secondary layers of U2
The Stephanites text in Gr 8 never got as far as being rubricated during
Theodoros’ command. No headings were ever inserted and the rather sloppy
red initials were added afterwards by someone who used a pale red ink of
inferior quality. One may compare the initials of the following units, U3–6,
which were undoubtedly supplied by Theodoros himself, and which look
qualitatively different both in ink and in style of execution.
The very last leaf of U2 also represents a secondary layer of inscription.
The text on f. 87r–v was added by a later owner of the book. One date is given
in the first line of f. 87r and a second one in the middle of the same page:
}
^ ( ")($) () (
) (A.D. 1546,
September 10, indiction year 5)
(
) Ç ($) = (Anno Mundi 7055, i.e., A.D. 1546,
indiction year 5, December 9.
49
So for example in chapter V; cf. SJÖBERG 1962, 76, n. 26.
78
Codicological unit 2 (U2), ff. 1–87
The notes on this folio make difficult reading. Some details were lost with
the trimming of the page and the hand itself is very cursive. I would still say
that the person adding the notes was an able writer, exhibiting a flowing and
adroit hand. The first section of the notes appears to be a petition draft on
land litigation, a complaint concerning a piece of land close to the marsh (
_}
"#
). A couple of names are mentioned:
...
µ
...,
and a ^ ¬. The next few lines include the name of a
bishop Theoleptos, who blessed the piece of land and sprinkled it with holy
water. On the verso page there is a doxology, and lastly some pen trials.
79
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
80
Codicological unit 3 (U3), ff. 88–103
writing area. F. 103 hangs loose. The rip is seen also in U4, which means
that the damage probably happened subsequent to the binding of the codex.
Demarcation traits in relation to previous unit: A – new text initiated
on first recto, also emphasized with a rubricated heading and a large orna-
mented initial; B – first recto is darker, more soiled than the rest of the
leaves; J – a new watermark is introduced; L – the mise-en-page has
changed: writing area now lesser in height and with 17 lines per page; M –
in this unit all the decorations have been neatly executed by the main scribe,
as it seems. The red ink is of very good quality compared to the one in U2.
Demarcation traits in relation to ensuing unit: A – text ends at last
verso of Q15, a new text beginning on first recto of next quire (U4); B –
soiled last verso; F and G – from ink and other details it seems that the last
one and a half page was written in a second relay, after the main texts were
finished though by the same scribe.
81
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
50
The handwriting of co-scribe A is described infra. See also the general section on scribes,
p. 55.
82
Codicological unit 4 (U4), ff. 104–127
beta
epsilon
83
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
zeta
eta
ny
ksi
sigma
omega
$
84
Codicological unit 5 (U5), ff. 128–151
85
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
more soiled that the rest of the leaves; O – in last unit there were only medi-
cal texts, whereas here the emphasis lies on contemporary, fifteenth-century
texts.
Demarcation traits in relation to ensuing unit: A – text end coincides
with end of Q21; B – last verso soiled and damaged, the corner torn off; F
and G – Text 22 was added secondarily in a blank space at the end.
Theodoros as rubricator
I have assumed that the floriate initials and other embellishments and deco-
rations are made by Theodoros, and not by somebody else, on account of the
rubricated headlines. These are clearly in Theodoros’ own handwriting (with
one exception on f. 88r in U3) and the red ink is identical to the one used for
the decorative elements.
How did the rubricator work (in this case Theodoros himself)? Since
Theodoros omitted both large and smaller initials in the text to be filled in
afterwards with red, he probably had to read through his own text rather
carefully so as not to miss out on some of the voids. In some places this be-
comes obvious, since the corrections which Theodoros has put in the text—
such as additions of accents—are made in red ink (e.g. on f. 128v a question
mark, f. 129r accents, f. 131r an inserted \). The initials at the beginning of
a line were always set out in the margin, outside of the justification area. By
vowels Theodoros usually put the accent and breathing there right away, in
black ink, thereby giving a hint for where to fill in the rubricated initial.
86
Codicological unit 6 (U6), ff. 152–199
: a schematic outline of the virtues
On f. 162v there is a diagram illustrating the cardinal virtues prudence, right-
eousness, fortitude, and temperance, and the qualities associated with each
of them. It is worked out in red and black ink with decorations in the same
floriate design as Theodoros uses for his initials. The diagram summarizes
what has been presented in the text on the previous page and is introduced
on f. 162r with the request: Ì + =
_¬
.
87
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
The fact that the numbering in the diagram seems somewhat random is ex-
plained by the list on the preceding page: here the qualities are listed in order
from to " (1–12), and in the diagram Theodoros adjusted the numbers
accordingly. The planning of rubricated initials did not turn out quite right,
though; when he wrote the words in black he forgot to leave out some of the
initial letters, so that as a result we now have read #
$, _
,
, et cetera. This indicates that the visual appearance of the rubri-
cation was more important than a correctly written text. Another oversight
on Theodoros’ part was to change the size of the writing area below the dia-
gram. Apparently he took the text written in black ink in the diagram as the
normal left border position, with the result that the text lines are indented
and the floriate initial is placed inside the normal mise-en-page instead of in
the margin where it ought to be. The diagram is reproduced on the front
cover (dust jacket) of this book.
88
Codicological unit 7 (U7), ff. 200–207
51
I have put the last criterion in parenthesis, since its weight is lessened by the fact that the
last three leaves of U6 are not rubricated. It could be that the scribe after having finished U6,
though with the last three leaves blank, then decided to expand the unit with Text 38 (the
Synopsis Chronike gnomology) and what is now U7. In that case the boundary between U6
and U7 is blurred by the fact that neither Text 38 nor Texts 40–41 are rubricated. On the other
hand, U7 may very well have been created independently; we cannot know if Text 38 was
added to U6 before or after the creation of U7.
89
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
90
Codicological unit 8 (U8), ff. 208–223
Transposed units?
There is a possibility that units 6–10 were intended to be arranged in another
sequence than the present one and that they happened to be transposed at
binding or rebinding. This is not obvious from the contents: no texts have
been affected internally. But if we put together indications of a codicological
nature we get the following picture (outlined in the table, below). The paper
quality and watermarks differ between units: scissors in U6, anchor in U7,
oxhead in U8, probably anchor in U9 (at least the paper quality agrees with
U7), oxhead in U10. U7 (Q28) and first quire of U9 (Q31) are cleaner than
the other parts; they show almost no water damage. Even the last verso of
U7 and the first recto of U9 look neat. U8, on the contrary, has large con-
spicuous moisture stains in upper and outer margins and at the bottom of the
spine. The stain in the upper margin seems gradually to appear in Q31 and is
91
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
fully developed in Q32 of U9, and in Q32 the rest of the staining seems to
correspond with what is visible in U8. Some quires are singed at the edges,
especially Q27 (U6) and Q32. When it comes to the number of lines to the
page, there are 17 lines in U6, 18 in U7 (except last verso which has 17 lines
+ blank space at the end); U8 has got 18 lines, as does U10 as well; in U9
Q31 has a writing area of 17 lines while Q32 has 18 lines.
front edge of
U6 scissors yes last quire 17 lines
18 (last verso
U7 anchor no no 17)
incipient from
U9, Q31 anchor? mid-quire on no 17 lines
92
Codicological unit 9 (U9), ff. 224–237
93
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
103x65 mm, just as we have it in Q32 and also in most of the other units
carrying oxhead watermarks. On the other hand, one would further expect
the writing areas of Q31 and Q28 (U7) to correspond if—as I hypothesized
earlier—they were produced in sequence from the same stack of paper.52
They do not correspond. This looks aggravating for the credibility of our
hypothesis; perhaps the units were not transposed after all? There is a way to
salvage this, though: let us suppose that Theodoros has just copied U7 and it
lays there on the table. He proceeds with Q31 (U9), and has as his model the
last verso page of U7. That particular page had only 17 lines of text, whereas
the rest of U7 had 18 lines to each page. The outcome is that Theodoros will
design the writing area of Q31 to equal the layout of f. 207v, which is exactly
how it has turned out in Gr 8. Consequently, what seemed to be a compro-
mising factor has now been shown to corroborate the link between U7 and
U9.
52
For the discussion on transposed units, see U8, above.
53
Stanza 17 of Carmen Paraeneticum is also met with in Text 46, ff. 234r–237v (U9).
94
Codicological unit 11 (U11), ff. 254–261
on last verso, especially in Text 52, and an extra line was added at the end,
thus stretching the writing area.
95
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
copied, or even that they were copied at the same time, i.e. as one single unit
comprising two separable parts. Nevertheless, I have chosen to present these
parts as two different units, and rather discuss how much or little boundary
“proof” we have in each case. As noted above, when the data are inconclu-
sive you lose more in bringing the presumed units together than by keeping
them apart in the overall schedule. It is safer to admit the vagueness in pre-
sent criteria than to blur possible differences by implicitly sketching a tight
link.
54
On f. 196v the latter is rendered as © }#}$¨ #\
=
.
55
Another instance of recycling was seen at the end of the preceding unit (U10), where one
stanza of the poem Carmen Paraeneticum reappeared as a page filler, despite having already
been included together with the rest of the stanzas in U9.
96
Codicological unit 12 (U12), ff. 262–285
56
The zodiac and the diagram with geomantic houses are depicted in Chapter 5, pp. 218 and
222.
97
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
planned to have an author’s name there and perhaps the beginning of the
epigram written in red (now the first half line of AP IX 359 is missing). Oth-
erwise he would not have put “
^
^” above the next epigram (AP IX
360). Texts 59–60 are also problematical: in contents Text 60 looks like an
amplification of Text 59, and thus it is not clear whether they should be
treated as one or two items. Furthermore, Text 60 seems to be construed
from a number of short excerpts added one after another. But one cannot say
whether Theodoros picked this and that from different sources, or the
“whole” text was borrowed from a model manuscript.
If we compare with the rubrication in U3, we see that Theodoros often
needs less than an inch of a line to fit in a small title or subtitle. We can thus
assume that such aid was to be added as a means of orientation for the
reader. However, large initials which have been inserted secondarily must
not be trusted as guidance in these matters. As an example we may choose
the initial at the top of f. 279v: it would be easy to infer from the large initial
that a new text starts right there. One would then treat the last line of f. 279r
as a page filler with no relation to what follows on the next page. But that is
not the case: the large initial is quite uncalled for since the text definitely
bridges the recto and verso pages.57
57
The reader who added the initials seems to have assumed that f. 279v rendered the begin-
ning of a lexicon starting on alpha, thence the large and decorated alpha wrongly inserted for
delta (“ ” instead of <> ). Also the third word on the page got an initial alpha
instead of the phi that was required (“” instead of <}>). See also Appendix 1, p. 293.
98
Codicological unit 13 (U13), ff. 286–301
Theodoros’ text on the same page, but it is still difficult to assess whether the
decorations are primary (by Theodoros) or not. Blank spaces left for inser-
tion of initials were later filled with plain ones partly in brownish-black,
partly in light brown ink. The fairly sized breathings and accents set out in
the margin by Theodoros (e.g. on f. 293v) indicate that he planned to have
larger initials also at the beginning of each of the letters. As for the titles and
subsidiary titles: though the lines are thinner Theodoros could still have put
them in together with the primary layer. The variation can be explained by a
different slanting of the pen.
Condition: Soiled first recto and last verso. Damp stains which do not re-
semble the ones in Q38 (U12). Cropped leaves, marginal notes partly lost.
Demarcation traits in relation to previous unit: A – quire boundary and
text boundary coincide; B – first recto is darker, more soiled and worn than
the rest of the leaves; H – plausibly the size of the leaves was different in
this unit, since the writing area leaves almost no room for an outer margin in
its cropped state; J – different paper/watermark; L – different mise-en-page;
M – different style of decoration; O – change in textual contents.
Demarcation traits in relation to ensuing unit: A – quire boundary and
text boundary coincide; B – last verso soiled and worn; E – script com-
pressed to make the text fit, or rather: the writing area is very well planned,
so as to gently fit the texts into the quire.
99
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
each letter on its own page: he could, for example, have chosen to add a line
at the bottom of f. 295r to fit the letter in. But since that would have burst the
justification measurements, he had to do without it. A tricky parallel is pre-
sent at the transition from recto to verso of f. 296: Theodoros puts the subti-
tle in the upper margin of the verso page despite the fact that the first line on
the verso actually belongs to the end of the preceding letter, the new letter
starting on line two. The illusion is that he succeeds in starting out with a
new text at the top of this verso page also.
The slight increase in number of lines in Q40 seems well-arranged too
(starting out with ca. 25 lines per page and ending with the suite 31/29/29
/28/28/28). From the bottom of f. 298v (Texts 71–72) Theodoros combines
the larger number of lines per page with a further condensation of words on
each line. These last six pages must have been meticulously calculated, since
he manages to stick to his mise-en-page of 28 lines per page all through the
last three pages and nevertheless end his last text exactly at the bottom of
f. 301v. The conclusion must be that a cursory judgment on scribal work
based on what the pages superficially look like may be fallacious. If, on the
contrary, we inspect the copying procedure more closely and try to follow
the steps a scribe has taken—reading his mind, so to speak—this may well
lead us to a revised view on these matters.
Quires: Q41: [302–307] quaternion minus 6th and 7th leaves, which have
been cut out (stubs remain).
Paper: Same paper as in the main part of U2, also present in U8–9, U11–
12, and U15. Watermark: oxhead.
Justification: 108 x 70 mm, 19 lines to the page.
Scribe: Theodoros, using good black ink. By other hands: owner’s marks,
computations, and notes on otherwise blank pages (ff. 305v–307v).
Texts: Nos. 73–75. <Leo VI>, Canticum Compunctionis, i.e. an alpha-
betical anacreontic poem on the Last Judgement, and another anonymously
transmitted poem of similar structure, with the incipit |>
#=%. The author of the latter is Constantine of Sicily. Pen trials and
notes.
Decoration: Two lines left blank on f. 302r for rubricated title and per-
haps a headpiece; ditto on f. 303v. The void spaces left for rubricated initials
were later filled in with small plain ones in greyish-beige ink.
Condition: Moisture damage the same as in neighboring quires. Only
slightly more soiled on first recto and last verso.
100
Codicological unit 14 (U14), ff. 302–307
+ =( >)
>
_=+ + (¬
) =\¨
$% ·## Ë
+
}"% () < # () +
""#
+
_
101
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
+
(
)?
?
. Here we are thus given the name of one
of the many owners and readers of this book: the priest Kaloiannis Antio-
chos who was protopapas in “Palea.”58 From the position of the entry on f.
305v, where the owner’s notice follows upon the more fluent lines (the
Manuel Philes excerpt), we may infer that this Kaloiannis was a later owner
of the book than the person who wrote the document on f. 87.59 This means
that he must have owned Gr 8 some time between 1547 and the early 1570s.
Unfortunately nothing else is known about this man and his children.60
On f. 306v this Kaloiannis has put another few words: ²(
)
<>, i.e. “Christ has risen from the dead.”
The rest of the notes on f. 306v and 307r are computations:
F. 307v is blank except for the phrase { }\=, which has
been copied from the beginning of U15, f. 308r (Ps. 31).
58
During the period of Venetocracy the ecclesiastic office of protopapas was common in
Crete and in the Heptanesa (Ionian Islands). Second to the bishop in rank, the protopapas
functioned as an intermediate between the authorities and the Greek population (BAGIAKAKOS
1959, 223).
59
An even more unambiguous sequence is the “repetition” of pen trials on f. 328r; cf. U16,
below.
60
The unskilled writing of this priest should not be taken as a sign of illiteracy or incapacity
to appreciate the contents of the book. The abilities to read and write were not as closely
coupled then as they are today. Cf. GREEN 1994, 9.
102
Codicological unit 15 (U15), ff. 308–323
61
Incidentally, the incipits of Ps. 38 and Ps. 6 are identical.
62
The arithmetic note is discussed in connection with U16, below.
103
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
63
That Bembo could have been the scribe was suggested by Nigel Wilson on his visit to
Uppsala University Library in 1998.
64
See also the discussion of Text 81 in Chapter 5.
104
Codicological unit 15 (U15), ff. 308–323
writing area of Q43 is admittedly slightly larger, but it still has 9 + 9 lines to
the page, and the conclusion must be that the boundary at f. 315 is a subordi-
nate one inside the unit.
In the photo, below, we see first the hand of the Latin co-scribe (latter half
of Ausonius’ poem), then the secondary layer (the micro-text “Ë
<\”), and last a third layer, someone trying to copy both the last line of the
Latin and the initial words of the micro-text).
105
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
106
Codicological unit 16 (U16), ff. 324–331
sequence of these pen trials proves that the book came into his hands after
and not before 1546.
Further traces of the “documentary” hand follow on 328v. This passage,
too, was copied below by yet another reader:66
+
# Ù# ¬
\ ¬_() }% #\<
_¬
()¨ · =
#= ¬
\ <
¬ $%
\< #().
A ladle (glutton) pulled an animal up the tree incessantly saying to the archi-
mandrite: if you want, father, come down from the tree, so that humbly I may
honor your big cowl.
We see the same contrast between the trained hand and the more halting one
on f. 329r, where the following saying is written twice:
Greet a prudent friend as a pocket full of gold; as for the stupid one, flee him
as were he an evil serpent.
¬#
¨ #¬= ~ Ü <
¤ \ ~ ¡
\
~ ·#(#) . @<Ë + _% <. \
As we have seen above, it is common to find lines from the original texts (or
from later entries) copied once more, whether it was done as an exercise in
writing or just to try out the pen and ink. This does not seem to be the case
with the example of the three mills, above, because that problem is not part
of the mathematical texts which follow (Texts 84 and 86). But here it may be
illuminating to turn to the other manuscript in Theodoros’ hand, Parisinus
66
I am grateful to Dr. John Burke for improving my understanding of this micro-text.
107
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
gr. 3045, which also contains a text on arithmetic. On ff. 173r–192r there is a
text of precisely the same character as Texts 84 and 86 in Gr 8, in fact, sev-
eral examples are identical (or just slightly varied in wording). Among the
mathematical problems in the Paris manuscript one also finds the one pre-
sented here above as an extra, as something a reader may have added.67 If
Theodoros included this problem in another codex, it is not farfetched to
imagine that it may have been included in the mathematical text of Gr 8 too,
namely, in the quire which apparently is missing at the outset of U16. Once
again, we find how important it is to observe the micro-texts and the later
insertions in a manuscript, and not only the larger texts.
Quires: Q45: [332–336] ternion from which the last leaf has been cut out.
Paper: Same paper as in the main part of U2, also present in U8–9, U11–
12, U14–15. The fragment of a watermark present on f. 332 looks like two
thongs of a star.
Justification: 108 x 67 mm, 42–49 lines per page.
Scribe: Theodoros has here crammed an extreme mass of text into each
page.
Texts: No. 88a–b, Life of Aesop and 58 fables by Aesop. Text incomplete
at end.
Decoration: One large and ornamented initial, 5 lines in height. Small but
elegant initials at the beginning of each fable. All initials are black with tiny
dots of gold attached.
Condition: Severely damaged by singeing and water. A couple of holes
burnt also in text area, mainly on last leaf. The text breaks off in the middle
of a sentence on f. 336v.
Demarcation traits in relation to previous unit: A – new text beginning
on first recto; B – different condition altogether due to burn ; C – different
quire construction; J – different paper/watermark; L – different mise-en-
page; M – different style of decoration; O – change in contents and genre.
Aesopian leftovers
Besides being incomplete, due to quire damage and burn, the text transmitted
in this unit is a bit odd. On the first twelve lines of f. 332r we have the very
brief version of Aesop’s life called “Vita III” (ed. Eberhard). Then comes the
first part of fable No. 1. This is interrupted on line 22 by a part of Vita W (ed.
Westermann). Then, on line 13 of f. 332v, we retrieve the second half of
67
In Par. gr. 3045 the problem begins on f. 173v, mid-page.
108
Codicological unit 17 (U17), ff. 332–336
fable No. 1, and the rest of the fables follow in sequence. Possibly Theo-
doros realized that he had made a mistake with the introduction, rewrote it,
and kept the mackle paper himself (=U17). This would explain the gilt ini-
tials, something which would otherwise hardly be found in a personal copy.
In that case, the singeing may be unrelated: it could have happened much
later, for example in connection with the fire at the library of El Escorial.
But there is, of course, also the alternative explanation: that the quire or
booklet which he had prepared got accidentally burnt and he managed to
save only a few pages.
109
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
110
The composite with all its units
Pros Text 43 Simokates’ letters: the two MSS belong to the same group
(“familia a” in Zanetto’s edition; my collation of Gr 8). Par.
gr. 2991A (P) holds 80 of 81 letters, Gr 8 only 20.
Text 45 List of patriarchs/kings: a longer narrative in P in certain pas-
sages (on Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the Persians, the Romans),
but otherwise rather similar. Whereas Gr 8 ends with Konstas,
P goes on to Michael Komnenos.
Texts Letters by Basil and Libanios: P and Gr 8 belong to the same
67–70 group of MSS according to Rudberg and Foerster
Text 71 Both MSS contain the same two excerpts from Josephus’ The
Jewish War (P has further Josephus excerpts).
Uncertain Text 44 The Decalogue: included in both MSS, but would a profes-
sional scribe really need a model for it?
Text 72 A large lacuna in P, amounting to 34 lines in Gr 8, shows that
P could not have been the model for Gr 8 for Nikephoros
Gregoras’ letter unless a leaf from P was lost at a later stage.
69
Foerster writes about Gr 8 that tantopere conspirat, ut si non ex eo descriptus, certo ex
eodem exemplari repetendus sit (see RUDBERG, loc. cit.).
70
Jean Darrouzès holds another view on the origin of Par. gr. 2991A, suggesting that it came
from the Peloponnese and ended up in a monastery in Chalkidiki, the St. Anastasia Pharma-
kolytria (DARROUZÈS 1954, 54; for this monastery see GLABINAS 1983; for the homonymous
monastery in Constantinople, see JANIN 1969, 26).
71
Cf. DRERUP 1906, lx-lxii. The recent Isocrates edition by Basil Mandilaras (2003) contrib-
utes no further information on these two manuscripts.
111
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
The conclusion drawn from this sketch must be that there are definite simi-
larities between the two books, but not to the extent that Rudberg suggested.
The crucial point is that the match exists for merely two codicological units
in Gr 8: U9 and U13.72 On the other hand, these manifest correspondences
shed light on the two “uncertain” texts in the presentation above: the Deca-
logue, Text 44, probably was part of the parcel which ended up in U9, and in
the case of Text 72 (in U13), one may assume that the Paris manuscript later
lost one leaf.73 Thus a reasonable modification of Rudberg’s hypothesis is
that Theodoros came across Par. gr. 2991A (alternatively a shared model or
an intermediate copy), perhaps on the Peloponnese but there is no proof of
that. Constantinople seems a less probable alternative, considering the politi-
cal situation after 1453. It also means that the two manuscripts have only a
minor share of texts in common: nine texts or ca. 40 folia in Gr 8. This is not
much if we look at the respective size of the codices (336 ff. in Gr 8; 495 ff.
in Par. gr. 2991A). A lesson to learn from this comparison is that one should
not underestimate the importance of a thorough structural analysis. In com-
bination with the philological scrutiny of textual relationships this can pro-
vide us with more accurate results when it comes to the linking of manu-
scripts.
72
For U13 the match is exceptionally fine, since the texts appear together and in the same
order also in Par. gr. 2991A. This is not the case with the Parisinus texts corresponding to
Texts 43–45. If these texts were indeed copied from Par. gr. 2991A, then Theodoros must
have picked them out here and there in the model manuscript. In that case he was also the one
who made the active choice to heavily abridge the list of kings and select only a fourth of the
Simokates letters.
73
Since I have only consulted Par. gr. 2991A in a microfilm copy, I cannot confirm what the
quires look like.
74
This assumption is based upon a direct copying of Gr 8 from Par. gr. 2991A. Further copies
in-between would obscure the conjecture.
112
The composite with all its units
also loners, having little in common with the other units. Thus one may
schematically reconstruct Gr 8 to consist of the following distinctive parts:
One may now speculate around the reasons for the present sequence of units.
In my opinion, the following factors ought to be considered (I now leave U1
aside): U2 at the outset because it is the longest text; U3–6 follow because of
their degree of finish and elegance and perhaps due to similar contents in U2
and U3; U7 as a sequel due to similarity with U6 in contents; U8 probably
misplaced after switching places with U9; U9 was, I believe, written in se-
quence with U7. The sequence from the last quire of U9 with U8 and U10–
15 to follow may have been the actual production sequence, but of course a
swap here and there would not make much difference, the contents being of
a similar kind. U13 stands out (different paper, different mise-en-page) but,
as we saw above, it was probably produced during the same working period.
In a way, U15 is even more distinct with its bilingual design and Theodoros’
more casual handwriting. U16 and U17, finally, are the least presentable
units, the one unfinished, the other in a pitiful state. Even so, the texts were
obviously worth keeping. The hierarchy is clear though: Theodoros put the
longer texts and the more elaborate units first and the more personal and
unassuming units at the end of the codex.
113
MAKING SENSE OF A ONE-VOLUME
LIBRARY
4 The contents of Gr 8
1
So Krumbacher, Hunger, and Beck, among others. Important contributions to the discussion
of genres, authorship, and other aspects of vital interest in the quest for a new history of Byz-
antine literature, are collected in ODORICO & AGAPITOS 2002.
2
KAZHDAN 1999.
4 The contents of Gr 8
anonymous and fluid texts no less than the ones authored by famous person-
ages.
The reception and use of the texts is another aspect that is often neglected
in the compartmentalization according to genres and styles. Just as the con-
cept of a genre changes with every addition of new text, the reception of the
texts is never static. With Byzantine books it is sometimes of lesser concern
whether a work was originally written in antiquity, in Early-, Middle-, or
Late Byzantine times: the fact that these texts are now bound in the same
volume regardless of origin makes them “new” in a way, since the context is
more or less unique for each codex. It may therefore help to be a bit squint-
eyed when studying Byzantine books, keeping one eye on the original set-
ting of the texts and one at the receiving end, the present context. This pro-
vides us with means to pursue literary analysis in combination with an as-
sessment of social and cultural aspects of the Byzantine books which trans-
mit the texts.
Categories of texts in Gr 8
A substantial number of textual types or genres are represented in Gr 8, de-
pending on how you subdivide and sort them, and it is a challenge to try to
find an optimal way of introducing them to the reader. To determine the
predominance of any group over another, one would have to take into ac-
count both quantity (number of folios, number of texts) and distribution (oc-
currence in several units). In order to prevent confusion, splitting the
reader’s vision unduly by too many small categories, I have decided to bring
in all the texts under four—to my mind—fundamental headings: narrative
texts, rhetorical texts, philosophical-theological texts, and practical texts.
Even though this still implies certain overlappings and borderline cases, it
has the advantage of elucidating how the texts may have been used and ap-
preciated by the readers (including, of course, the scribe Theodoros himself).
Keeping in mind that the function of texts necessarily varies from person to
person and from time to time, I admit that my arrangement is tentative. This
is why I ask the reader of my book to bear in mind that the arrangement of
the texts here is momentary, determined by the needs at hand, and is open to
rearrangement by anyone who would like to consider these texts from a dif-
ferent perspective.
The categories are not uniform in scope: there is an asymmetry in the use
of the traditional notion of genre as opposed to subject matter, structure,
mode, and use.3 The category of “narrative texts” is not commensurable to
the category of “rhetorical texts.” In the first case we are dealing with a
mode of expression which is present in many different genres; while the
3
On concepts of genre, see for example FOWLER 1982, 37–53.
118
Narrative texts
Narrative texts
Narrative texts should here be understood not as a genre, but rather as a
mode of representation: the desire to “tell a story,” to convey things which
have happened (more rarely, which will happen), either in real life or in a
person’s imagination.5 This mode of describing and retelling events can
permeate a work more or less completely. The narrative mode decides the
form altogether in cases when the presentation of the story, or sequence of
connected events, is the intended end result. The alternative situation, when
the author uses narrative devices in a text which has as its main purpose
something else above and beyond the (mere) story-telling, is likely to be
even more frequent—at least that seems to be the case in Gr 8. The clean-cut
works of story-telling are more easily counted, whereas the number of narra-
tives inside other kinds of texts is considerable.
4
For information on editions of the texts, see Appendix 2.
5
Emmanuel Bourbouhakis and Ingela Nilsson define narrative as “the linguistic representa-
tion of an event or a series of events occuring in the past, regardless of whether that past be
real or fictional” (BOURBOUHAKIS & NILSSON, forthcoming). I am grateful to the authors for
giving me the opportunity to read their contribution in advance. One may add that the linguis-
tic or literary representation is but one possibility: narratives are also present in Byzantine art,
for example in vita icons describing a saint’s life in pictures. A study of the narrative in vita
icons depicting St. Nicholas of Myra is under preparation by Irina Brändén (Uppsala Univer-
sity). On the concept, see also ŠEVÞENKO 1999, 150f.
119
4 The contents of Gr 8
6
Both chreiai and apophthegmata may be considered anecdotes or maxims. The difference
between them is slight, but the former can be taken to include more of a person’s doings and
the latter a person’s sayings. On these terms, see SEARBY 2007, I, 3–5.
7
These thoughts were presented by Gencheva-Mikami in a paper held at the 14th Conference
of the Australian Association for Byzantine Studies [Byzantine Narrative]. For the abstract,
see http://home.vicnet.net.au/~byzaus/conferences/14th2004/abstracts.html. The Notitia Dig-
nitatum is the adminstrative listing of all major offices in the (Western as well as Eastern)
Roman Empire. In Gr 8 there are several lists which might be said to carry an inherent narra-
tive: the list of the seven wonders (Text 22), lists of Israelitic, Chaldean, Persian and Assyrian
kings (Text 45), lists of patriarchates and metropolises (Text 62); inventors (Text 63);
Palaiologan emperors and Ottoman sultans (Text 65). Some of these texts are also discussed
below, in the section on practical texts.
8
Hayden White discusses how the smallest entry in a chronicle (as for example: “Emperor X
died and his son Y succeeded to the rule”) contains in embryo the elements of a narrative. The
entry serves as a “narreme” since it produces a connection between two events, in fact it is a
narrative in itself (WHITE 1987, 14).
9
On the uses of narrative in different genres of Byzantine literature, see further the articles by
Margaret Mullett, Roger Scott, and Ingela Nilsson in BURKE 2006.
120
Narrative texts
have had of not only linguistic form and rhetorical elegance but also of hu-
mor, irony, exciting subject matter, intriguing development, intertextual
play, et cetera. This is also the reason why I put narrative texts as the first
subgroup in Gr 8: I use the (by necessity) circumstantial and contingent fac-
tor of arranging texts into groups and genres to highlight the fact that many
of the texts in the manuscript incorporate appealing stories, even if they su-
perficially may seem to be very different in genre and kind.
10
The Sanskrit original, now lost, was written sometime between the 1st c. BCE and the 5th c.
CE.
121
4 The contents of Gr 8
development and about his voyage to India. This Pahlavã (Middle Persian)
work has not survived, but can be reasonably well reconstructed on the basis
of the Old Syriac and Arabic translations.11
Most of the later translations, including the Greek ones, were directly or
indirectly made from the Arabic version, the Kallah wa-Dimnah. The Ara-
bic editor Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ (ca. 720–ca. 756) chose to include yet another
frame story or prologue and four more chapters of fables, two of Indian and
two of unknown origin. In that form, with three prolegomena and fifteen
chapters of fable stories (where the cast ranges from animals to wise men
and travelers), the Kallah wa-Dimnah reached the Byzantine readers. The
Greek title is a kind of folk etymological translation, by which the two jack-
als and leading characters Kalãlah and Dimnah got Greek-sounding names.
The Byzantine transmission of Kallah wa-Dimnah is not altogether
straightforward. According to Johannes Niehoff-Panagiotidis, the Arabic text
was translated into Byzantine Greek on four occasions.12 The earliest transla-
tion is the least known, since we only have a few folia left of it in a manu-
script which used to belong to the Basilian monastery in Grottaferrata. This
manuscript, New York Pierport Morgan M. 397, also contains a version of
the Aesop Romance, a collection of Aesopian fables, the fables of Babrios
and the Physiologos.13 The next effort of translation was made by Symeon
Seth, a physician from Antioch, who dedicated his work to the emperor
Alexios I Komnenos, a circumstance that would date the work to around
1085.14 It was Symeon Seth who minted the Greek title Stephanites and
Ichnelates. He wrote in a very polished Byzantine koine with the Komnenian
court as his primary audience, and he also endeavored to make his version
comply with the genre expectations of ancient Greek fable epics: he trans-
posed oriental-sounding names and titles into Greek, adapted the storytelling
to the Aesopian tradition and incorporated citations and reminiscences from
classical Greek authors, from the Bible, from patristic and Byzantine litera-
ture.
Though obviously well-suited as a prince’s mirror, Stephanites and Ichne-
lates won an audience outside of court circles as well, and was soon revised
into a little less sophisticated koine. Two translators, working independently
11
For the early stages of the work, see DE BLOIS 1990, 1–11.
12
For an overview of the Greek translations and their relationship to each other, see NIEHOFF-
PANAGIOTIDIS 2003, 34–47.
13
As for the time of translation, the only safe assumption is that a certain period of time must
have passed between the time of the original translation and the time when the Pierpont Mor-
gan manuscript was copied. Elinor Husselman dates the manuscript to between 980 and 1050,
and adds that “[i]t should be noted that the Greek contains several mistakes which cannot well
have been in the original. Therefore the Morgan manuscript cannot be the first copy of the
translation from the Arabic” (HUSSELMAN 1939, 6–7 and 14).
14
The dedication is transmitted in the oldest manuscript, Codex Laurentianus XI 14 (12th c.).
The different recensions and subrecensions of the manuscript transmission have been touched
upon above, p. 75.
122
Narrative texts
of each other, added translations of other parts of the Arabic text, parts
which Symeon Seth had chosen to abridge or exclude. One of these transla-
tions can be traced back to Eugenios of Palermo, if not as translator so at
least as curator for the work, in the late twelfth century; the other translation
was probably produced in the East, since in its least contaminated form it has
survived in a Church Slavonic translation.15 What happened later was that
these two versions were combined so as to form a full translation of the Ara-
bic original, and a closer one at that, since the ambition of Symeon Seth to
“Hellenize” the work was by now absent. This is the kind of full-fledged
story assemblage we meet with in Gr 8.
Stephanites and Ichnelates has been labeled “popular literature” (Volks-
literatur) in the handbooks on Byzantine literature.16 In a more recent hand-
book, however, Jan Olof Rosenqvist presents a more cautious view: he
stresses that the language form and style do not justify categorizing the work
as popular.17 To characterize it as popular literature is certainly problematic,
considering the fact that the story was translated and adapted at court, dedi-
cated to the emperor, and was spread and read mainly in the educated stra-
tum of Byzantine society. It is only in the light of later developments that the
estimation is comprehensible: the fact that these fables got an afterlife in so
many languages and revisions and eventually ended up in many a reading
primer in schools, might have colored our perception of the earlier phases of
reception as well. According to Hélène Condylis-Bassoukos’ investigation of
the manuscript tradition, the Stephanites and Ichnelates is often found in
close connection with other fable collections, with moralizing and philoso-
phical works, with medical works, and with bestiaries. The conclusion she
draws is that the work “se trouve lié tour à tour à des familles de textes dif-
férents; il peut donc être considéré de différentes manières.”18 Even though it
is hard to fathom why “bestiaries” are mentioned separately—as moralizing
fable literature it ought to be well covered by the preceding categories—her
conclusion can nevertheless be seen to correspond with the project of mak-
ing sense of Gr 8 as a book.
15
On the recensions B (the “Eastern” translation) and B (the recensio Eugeniana), see
NIEHOFF-PANAGIOTIDIS 2003, 39–45. In addition to the Church Slavonic translation, the Byz-
antine Stephanites and Ichnelates stood model to one Italian and one Latin version and also to
paraphrases into modern Greek. Theodosios Zygomalas, who was the protonotary of the
patriarchate in Constantinople, produced one of these, in 1584. Another one, from 1721, was
written by the physician Demetrios Prokopios at the request of the Phanariote prince (hospo-
dar) of Walachia, Johannes Nikolaos Alexandros Mavrokordatos (SJÖBERG 1962, 133).
16
BECK 1971, 41–45; MAZAL 1989, 144f.
17
ROSENQVIST 2007, 110f. Rosenqvist’s reference is to Symeon Seth’s version, admittedly the
most polished one; other versions followed, and especially with the sixteenth-century para-
phrases into Modern Greek the Hochsprachlichkeit of the work was no longer an issue.
18
CONDYLIS-BASSOUKOS 1997, xxviii.
123
4 The contents of Gr 8
19
See BEER 1903, xcii (No 160 c I). The inventory description is far from complete in its
account of the items in Gr 8. Therefore it is not unambiguously clear whether one should rely
on it or rather assume that the note on the patriarchates and metropoles was put in lastly, as an
extra piece of information, regardless of its place in the book. There seems to be yet another
alteration of the sequence of texts compared to today’s: in the inventory Text 24 (Plethon’s
Reply to George Scholarios’ defense of Aristotle) is introduced after Text 25 and 26 (the
letters from Bessarion and Nicolas Sagundino), but this sequence, 25–26–24, is physically
impossible, since the three items are written in a sequence inside one and the same quire. If,
nevertheless, we should take the inventory at face value regarding the placement of Text 88
(Aesop), the reason for moving it was most likely due to its condition. Being a small, even
incomplete unit (about half a quire), and badly damaged by singeing at that, it certainly stands
out from the rest of the book. The page layout, jammed with minute script, also makes its
appearance less compatible with the other units, something which could have contributed to
the placement of it at the end of the book.
20
See Grammatiki Karla’s summary of the recent genre discussion around the Life of Aesop
(KARLA 2001, 1–3).
21
The date of composition is still unclear; cf. KARLA 2001, 8, with further references.
22
WEST 2003, 428.
23
This is the text that Albert Eberhard presented as “Vita III” (EBERHARD 1872, 309f.). Ben
Perry calls it a “short preface,” and states that its origin comes from the lost archetype (#) of
manuscripts LFV (Leiden Vulc. 93, 15th c.; Flor. Laur. LVII, 30, 16th c.; Vat. gr. 695, 14–15th
c.). According to Perry, this “#” manuscript was probably written in the first half of the 13th
c., perhaps in Southern Italy or Sicily (PERRY 1933, 214f.). Cf. also PERRY 1952, 212–213,
where the text is placed among the vitae minores under the label “Testimonium 1a.”
124
Narrative texts
ing the frame story second priority.24 In either case, a few brief facts of Ae-
sop’s life remain, together with an introduction to his storytelling, explaining
how the fables are cunningly wrought, precious, useful, and edifying.
After the introductory hypothesis fifty-nine fables follow. They are ar-
ranged alphabetically, from the story of the eagle and the fox (
#å), to the story of the aging lion (#\% <). The last one is in-
complete, breaking off because of the quire damage in U17, and we may
draw the conclusion that originally the sequence was supposed to continue
with more fables, arranged from lambda to the end of the alphabet.25 As I
mentioned in the preceding chapter, there is another incongruity in Text 91:
after the initial Vita III there is a short passage from Vita W, i.e. the so-called
Westermann recension, inserted right in the middle of the first fable.26 This
passage tells about Aesop’s stay at Samos, and how he helped the Samians
in their relation to King Kroisos. He does so not by explicitly telling them or
the king how to act, but by relating parables and fables which they in their
turn have to interpret. Thus another two fables are inserted inside this
passage of the Life: the stories on the war between the wolves and sheep, and
the poor man and the cicada (Aes. Fab. 158 and 298, ed. Hausrath).27 The
intriguing Chinese box technique which characterizes Stephanites and
Ichnelates is present here as well, even if it also happened to be enhanced by
mistake: placing the extract from Vita W inside the story of the eagle and the
fox was probably due to confusion of leaves in a model manuscript some-
where.28
Turning to fables as an ingredient in other kinds of texts, there is reason to
bring in a text in Gr 8 which might easily be overlooked in a quest for narra-
tive texts. Gregory of Nazianzos’ letter to Keleusios (Ep. 114; Text 7) is an
appealing example of the incorporation of a fable:29 on the subject of loquac-
ity and taciturnity Gregory tells the story about the swallows who ridiculed
the swans for not wanting to be around people and not singing except among
themselves. Inside this fable, he includes a very compressed narrative, giving
the whole story of Philomela’s rape by merely mentioning names, places,
and a few keywords:
24
It was apparently not unusual to copy the Aesopian Fables without including the Life: Perry
states that from the 12th c. onwards, “[i]f a scribe decided to include the Life at all, he chose
either the Westermann recension or [...] the brief notice about Aesop ascribed to Aphthonius”
(PERRY 1936, 26). The so-called Vita III is an imitation of the Aphthonian preface (PERRY
1933, 215).
25
The fables, numbered according to Hausrath’s edition, are listed in Appendix 2 (HAUSRATH
& HUNGER 1956 and 1970).
26
Vit. Aes. 93–100 (inc. ©%
> %; expl. ^ <%\
\# ).
27
Cf. HAUSRATH & HUNGER 1970, 185 and 1956, 107f.
28
On the narrative structure of the Life of Aesop at large, see HOLZBERG 1992.
29
In Gr 8 the attribution of the letter is “from Basil the Great to a certain Gregory but not the
Great” (f. 98v–99r). Thus, even if our scribe Theodoros did not read the text as authored by
Gregory of Nazianzos, he at least reckoned it to be by another church father.
125
4 The contents of Gr 8
Pandion, Athens, Tereus, Thrace, the journey, the grief, the violence, the mu-
tilation, the (woven) message, and, on top of it all, Itys and how we became
birds instead of people.
Historical narratives
Texts (20), 21, 42, 49, (51), 64, 71
30
Sophocles made use of the story in his play Tereus (TrGF, IV, 581–595b); it is also retold
by Achilles Tatius in the novel of Leucippe and Cleitophon (Ach. Tat. Leuc. 5.4–5.6). Ovid’s
Latin version in the Metamorphoses (Ov. Met. 6. 424–674) has made a lasting impact on
European literature, not least through reuse of the story by Chaucer, Shakespeare, and others.
31
Paul Gallay’s edition renders the last sentence of the swans’ riposte as a rhetorical question:
@
##$
$ _
<#
126
Narrative texts
There is a certain permeability between forms like letters and prose fiction:
letters are used within fictional narratives (for example in the ancient and
Byzantine novels), just as narrative is used within fictitious (and real) let-
ters.33 This is also the case with historiography, where speeches and letters
are often interwoven in the narrative. Consequently, overlappings are com-
mon between these and other genres. The investigation of a multifaceted
book like Gr 8 becomes a wholesome reminder of the fluid borders between
different kinds of texts. Literature is more compound and intricate than our
attempts at organizing it into the pigeon-holes of construed systems of genre
would allow. As a case in point we may look at the selection of excerpts
from John Tzetzes’ Chiliades (“Thousands”) or Book of Histories (Text
42).34 The short historical or mythological episodes in the Chiliades function
as a commentary to Tzetzes’ own collection of letters; these letters were in
turn addressed to fictitious persons as well as to his contemporaries. Before
Tzetzes was done, the learned commentary had swelled into more than
12.000 lines of political verse, a somewhat impractical format, which did not
help the distribution of this book either in the author’s own time, or later.
What we have here in the form of a commentary is thus a poem, and a his-
tory book, and an etymological handbook, and an antiquarian collection of
this and that and everything else. At the same time there are important sto-
ries transmitted here. To take one example only: in Chil. I, 3, Tzetzes tells us
about Gyges who became king of Lydia, and in just a few lines he manages
to remind us first of the version where the shepherd Gyges found a bronze
horse with a corpse in it; on its finger the corpse had a ring which could ren-
der its master invisible. Gyges used the ring to kill King Kandaules and seize
power.35 Then Tzetzes narrates Herodotos’ version: King Kandaules who had
a very beautiful wife insisted that Gyges see her undress; she noticed this
and gave Gyges the choice of either murdering her husband and taking his
place or being killed himself.36 Not content with reiterating these two ver-
sions, Tzetzes proceeds with an allegorical interpretation of the first version,
thus giving us yet another “renarrativization” of the story.
Two passages drawn from Josephus’ history on the Jewish War are in-
cluded in Gr 8 (Text 71). These are selected so that there is little information
on the historical framework and the situation at large; what the excerptor has
Gr 8, ff. 52v–62. Simoc. Ep. 61 brings in the fable of the ant and the cicada (cf. Aes. Fab.
114). On Theophylact Simokates’ letters in Gr 8, see also below, p. 144.
33
On letters embedded in novels, see ROSENMEYER 2001, 133–168.
34
John Tzetzes (ca. 1110–ca. 1180) was a poet and grammarian who belonged to the group of
professional literati which had connections to the imperial court at Constantinople (as did for
example Constantine Manasses, by whom we also have a text in Gr 8 (Text 38). Among other
tasks, Tzetzes was entrusted with introducing Empress Eirene (Bertha von Sulzbach) to an-
cient Greek literature, and especially to Homer (HUNGER 1978, II, 60). On the literary life in
12th-c. Constantinople, see MULLETT 1984; MAGDALINO 1993, 382–412.
35
This version is given by Plato in The Republic (Pl. R. 359d–360d).
36
Hdt. I, 8–13.
127
4 The contents of Gr 8
bestowed us with are two speeches (BJ 3, 472–484 and 361–382). The first
passage presents a situation where the emperor Titus realizes that the ene-
mies gathering outside the walls of Tarichaeae so outnumber the Roman
army that it ought to be impossible to win. Nonetheless, Titus makes this
exhortatory speech to urge on his subordinates. The other passage is
Josephus’ argument against suicide in a situation of total defeat: Jotapata, the
besieged town which they have defended, has fallen, and Josephus and his
men can now either kill themselves or surrender themselves to the Romans.
The parallel of the recently experienced siege and fall of the Byzantine capi-
tal in 1453 inevitably presents itself. A reminder may, however, be in place:
this last and fatal blow had been preluded by many earlier sieges, several of
which the Byzantines had withstood and some not.37 Thus, the two excerpts
may originally have been selected and combined by reason of other harsh
circumstances. Whether or not the two excerpts are unique for Gr 8 or rather
a common choice from Josephus’ work, this need not prevent our idea of
actualization: even if a prior excerptor may have had another occasion in
mind than the one furthered by Mehmet II, the situation which Theodoros
and his contemporaries had lived through would certainly have made the
message in Josephus’ speeches ever so urgent again.
Two more texts go well together with Josephus’ speeches on a conquered
and ruined city: Manuel Christonymos’ lament on the fall of Constantinople
(Text 20) and Michael Choniates’ elegy on Athens as he saw it in the early
thirteenth century (Text 51). These, however, will be dealt with in the next
section.
Another fifteenth-century text which comments on contemporary circum-
stances is Leonardo Bruni Aretino’s treatise on the constitution of Florence
(Text 21).38 That Bruni chose to write it in Greek was probably brought
about by the occasion of the Council of Ferrara-Florence, where the Byzan-
tine delegation included a significant number of distinguished and learned
men (Emperor John VIII, Patriarch Joseph II, George Gemistos Plethon,
Cardinal Bessarion, Mark Eugenikos, and George Scholarios, to mention the
most prominent). Bruni took the opportunity to present himself and his city
state in the language of the visitors. In 1439 he had just finished his Latin
37
Stephen Turnbull discusses ten major sieges of Constantinople (TURNBULL 2004, 47–57).
Other sources mention as many as twenty-five to thirty; see for example DE LAMARTINE 1857,
107; these figures are probably somewhat inflated, if we consider that six of the twenty-nine
sieges enumerated by Joseph von Hammer took place before 315 CE (HAMMER 1827, 552 and
674–675).
38
Leonardo Bruni Aretino (ca. 1370–1444) was the Chancellor of Florence and an important
promoter of the study of Greek literature in the West through his many translations to Latin of
classical Greek works. As an author, he is perhaps best known for his History of Florence, but
he also contributed to the circulation of Italian poetry through his biographies over Dante,
Petrarch, and Boccacio. Bruni has often been bestowed the epithet of “first modern historian”
(problematized by IANZITI 1997). For a modern edition of The Constitution of Florence, see
MOULAKIS 1986.
128
Narrative texts
From Adam until the Flood 2242 years went by. And from the Flood until the
hundred years of Abraham, 1569 years. And from Abraham until the exodus
of Israel’s sons, 405 years. And from Moses until the Zedekiah’s siege [of Je-
rusalem], 1076 years. And from Zedekiah until Augustus, the emperor, dur-
ing whose reign our Lord Jesus Christ was born, 608 years. All in all, from
Adam until Christ, 5500 years. And from the birth of Christ until Constantine
the Great, the holy king of the Christians, 296 years. And from the first year
of Constantine the Great until the great Justinian, 224 years.41
Stories are told and a range of narrative devices are employed more or less
everywhere in Gr 8, regardless of what genre definition we allot to the sepa-
rate items, and I could go on relating texts which display a high degree of
narrativity, if it were not for the fact that there are other aspects of the manu-
script to consider. Some of the narrative pieces will end up in the other
groups in this chapter: speeches and poems, for example, would in many
39
MOULAKIS 1986, 147.
40
According to Athanasios Moulakis, Gr 8 and Vat. pal. gr. 146 both depend on Monac. gr.
170 (stemma on p. 173). In his edition he has used Gr 8 only for lines 73–111, where Monac.
gr. 170 has a lacuna. But there is a problem with the dates: Moulakis states that the Munich
manuscript is from the 16th c. (as does the old library catalog by Hardt). As we are dealing
with a composite manuscript, the leaves with Bruni’s text may of course be of earlier date
than the rest of the volume. To keep the stemma as it is, we thus need to assume either an
earlier date than the 16th c. for the Monacensis text, or else a connection between that manu-
script and Gr 8 by way of a common model. The dating of Vat. pal. gr. 146 (also composite)
is of no help, as Moulakis only states that “[t]he works, though not necessarily the copies in
this codex, date from the XIVth, XVth and XVIth centuries” (MOULAKIS 1986,165).
41
For the Greek texts, see Appendix 1.
129
4 The contents of Gr 8
cases have qualified excellently, but in their case I have looked at functions
besides story-telling.
All in all, the narrative works should be seen as an important feature of
Gr 8 when considering the overall character of the book. They certainly con-
tribute to making the book an enjoyable piece of reading. What enhances
their importance is the fact that the longest narrative text (Stephanites in U2)
and also several shorter ones (many of the letters in U3) stand at the front of
the book. But they also come intermingled with many other kinds of texts:
reasoning texts mainly on philosophical and theological subjects, texts useful
for practical reasons, and texts where the narrativity is but one trait and pos-
sibly not the most important factor for the compiler when he made his selec-
tion. To these other kinds of texts we will now procede.
Rhetorical texts
Most texts in this category display an obvious awareness of rhetorical form
and epideictic chiselling of expression. Not that rhetorical training is absent
from the other texts in the codex; there are examples among both narrative
and philosophical texts which could have fit into this category as well. But in
the categorization of texts in Gr 8 my lodestar has been the function of the
texts: what need did the texts serve for the compiler? Rhetorical training was
crucial in Byzantium. If you had rhetorical techniques in your toolbox (in
addition to a good portion of classical erudition) and knew how to make
efficient use of them, they could open doors to a career, a position in the
bureaucracy, they could help you become someone of importance whether in
secular or ecclesiastical circles. The writing of letters, for example, was after
all “the major activity of the bureaucracy,” as George Kennedy puts it.42 Oral
performance must also have been part of what one prepared for. In addition,
the rhetorical excercises and display pieces had become a learned game
which one played alone or in the company of equally well educated friends
and colleagues.43
Nowadays, we tend to see rhetoric as an analytical tool. Not so in late an-
tiquity and in Byzantium: there it was first and foremost a creative-didactic
method. And this is, in my opinion, the underlying rationale of the selection
of many texts which ended up in Gr 8. Normally, Byzantine rhetorical in-
struction was based upon the textbooks of Hermogenes and Aphthonios—at
least from the transmission in manuscripts it seems that these two dominated
42
KENNEDY 1983, 71.
43
After 1453 the career paths for Greeks were not self-evident, whether they stayed in Otto-
man-ruled areas or moved westwards, but in many professions rhetorical skills would still
have been considered an asset. On the place and importance of Greek rhetorics after the fall of
Constantinople, see CONLEY 2000.
130
Rhetorical texts
the market.44 Thus, the rules were more or less set: everyone had to work
one’s way through the progymnasmata (the exercises of fables, elaborations
of proverbs, refutations and confirmations of a statement, and encomia, to
just mention some of the kinds).45 Just as one had to become skilled at the
old, and in reality extinct, version of Attic Greek, one also had to emulate the
rhetors of the past, using examples such as Isocrates, Libanios, and the
Cappadocians as models.
The educational situation was the foundation, but rhetoric became more
important than that. Out of these exercises were created new forms and
genres, literary pastimes as well as significant works. Even though, as is
often said, the only rhetorical genus that survived and flourished in
Byzantium was the epideictic (display), it could be pursued in various
manners. Rhetoric was never “empty.” These works, whether speeches of
praise (and blame), laments over cities lost, or letters of different kinds, had
a role to play in Byzantine society. A letter was not just a personal affair, it
would probably be read aloud, and especially so if one had managed to set
the accurate level of discourse; a subtle display of learning was never wrong
if it was done with grace. It showed that one belonged to the educated few
and it offered delight to the reader who could decipher the common code.
The texts from Gr 8 that will be considered here are on the one hand some
oratory works and poems, on the other hand letters of different kinds: ficti-
tious, personal, literary, instructive, there is a variety to choose from. The
epistolographic section is rich, all in all there are some seventy letters in the
codex. As a consequence, the discussion of these will dominate the survey.
But first a few words on the other rhetorical genres.
Oratory
Texts (5), 20, 27, 28, 55, (71), 72
Depending on the subject matter, oratory works may variously be described
as, e.g., speeches, sermons, and laments. The variation in Gr 8 is analogous.
Two texts are defined as “#<,” speech; two as “<$,” deliberative
(or just public) speech; one is a “´$,” literally a solo song although the
term later came to signify a lament; one has an abbreviated heading: “by
Libanios concerning a garrulous woman”; one lacks its heading in the manu-
script, and another is transmitted as a letter (@
#¤ < > ...).
Text 5, Isocrates’ Oration 1 (µ< ¥
> ), dis-
plays rather few signs of actually being a “speech.” At least it seems to have
been produced as a written discourse, sent by Isocrates as a gift to Demoni-
44
Cf. KUSTAS 1973, 9f. New rhetorical manuals were added as well: George Gemistos Ple-
thon and John Argyropoulos, for example, wrote their own treatises on rhetoric in the 15th c.
(MONFASANI 1983, 255).
45
On progymnasmata, see, for example, KENNEDY 1983, 54–73.
131
4 The contents of Gr 8
cus, for him to read.46 This ambiguity between written and oral is present in
other texts as well. Since it was common to read texts aloud, the distinction
is perhaps less of a problem. One and the same text could also have been
performed publicly at one point, and been distributed for circulation as a text
later, as in the case of Libanios’ speech. The subject matter of Isocrates
speech makes it expedient to postpone the discussion of it until later, in con-
nection with the practical texts.
Libanios’ Declamation 26 (Text 27) is an exhibition of forensic speech as
it was practiced in the old days, in Athens.47 Libanios presents the case of a
husband making an appeal to the court to rid himself of his unendurable
wife. In Byzantium this imaginary speech was the most popular of all of
Libanios’ declamations.48 The main characters could have been picked from
New Comedy, and Libanios’ handling of the subject makes the piece a kind
of literary stand-up comedy. An interesting detail in the description of the
wife is that she is not only talkative (in her husband’s opinion, that is), she is
obviously also an educated woman, who makes encomia and orations, she
studies during the night, is interested in matters of the city, the army, the
businesses in town, et cetera. This is not the role in which we are used to
picture women in antiquity. The comical part is that the old grump just goes
on and on describing his wife and her loquaciousness. His whole statement
in front of the jury is one long tirade (which he has opened by declaring how
much he yearns for silence). “A talkative person I couldn’t bear even in a
dream,” he says, while his longwinded speech gushes forth uninterruptedly
like a torrent in spring.
The two “<$,” public speeches, are the the ones from Josephus’
The Jewish War (Text 71). Since these, the <$ $
Á^ Â -
^ and the <$ ¥%¬, were discussed among the narratives, I
leave them aside here.
The text which besides Isocrates’ speech is called a “#<” is an item as-
cribed to John Chrysostom (Text 28). The title in our manuscript is />
=
>
$
"=
+ + "
(speech against Herodias and regarding wicked women). The Chrysostom
attribution of this work is usually regarded as spurious.49 The text seems to
be a misogynic sermon in a vein all but rare in patristic texts—at least it
looks that way from the portion of the text transmitted in Gr 8. In its entirety
the sermon is actually made up of two parts, one of invective (psogos),
where all the vile women in (Biblical) history are enumerated and discarded,
46
Isoc. Ad Dem. 1, 2: Ò
#Ñ
×
> #×< . Who this Demonicus was is not
clear: according to ancient tradition he was the son of one Hipponicus, a Cyprian and a friend
of the orator.
47
On declamation ( #\
), see RUSSELL 1983, 9–20.
48
RUSSELL 1996, 14.
49
Cf. MERCATI 1921, 231. See also PG 59, 485–490 (In decollationem praecursoris et baptis-
tae Ioannis, et in Herodiadem); CPG 4001 and 4570.
132
Rhetorical texts
50
Aelius Aristeides, for example, wrote a piece on Smyrna after the earthquake and Libanios
did the same for Nicomedia. On the tradition of historical laments for cities, see also ALEXIOU
1974, 83–101.
51
See FENSTER 1968, 281–289.
52
+ " * "
>, ed. LAMPROS 1908, 227–240. The other
two manuscripts are Bruxell. 11270 and Par. gr. 2077 (text incomplete). According to Paul
Wittek the scribe of the Brussels manuscript is “wahrscheinlich <Michael Apostoles>”
(MORAUX 1976, 81). The other monodies which Fenster mentions were edited in the same
publication by Lampros (
. 5).
53
LAMPROS 1908, 232; cf. FENSTER 1968, 285.
54
Nikephoros, who was born in Herakleia (Paphlagonia) in the early 1290s, came to Constan-
tinople to study. Among his teachers was Theodore Metochites, the addressee of the letter in
Gr 8. Supported by his patron John Kantakouzenos (later to become emperor), Nikephoros
devoted his life to scientific and literary studies. His largest undertaking is the Historia
Rhomaïke, which covers the period 1204–1358. In addition to this, and numerous treatises on
various subjects (not least on hesychasm, to which he was an ardent opponent), there is a
large collection of letters extant. The letter in Gr 8 is not included in Pietro Leone’s edition of
the epistolary collection (LEONE 1982–83).
133
4 The contents of Gr 8
Poetry
Texts (33), (38), (42), 46, 47, 51, 52, 58, 73, 74, 77
The poetical works in Gr 8 are not a particularly prominent group. Alto-
gether they occupy ca. 40 pages, or 6 % of the whole codex. In addition to
the poems discussed here, there are three texts which are composed in so-
called political, or fifteen-syllable, verse: the excerpts from Tzetzes’ Chili-
55
Nic. Greg., Hist. I. 322, 19 – 327, 5. According to Jan-Louis van Dieten, the text is trans-
mitted as a letter in six manuscripts (Gr 8 uncounted); VAN DIETEN 1975, 138. Cf. VAN DIETEN
1973, I 46 (No. 12) and 50 (No. 32).
56
Besides Nikephoros Gregoras’ letter on astronomy, there are other texts in Gr 8 which
suggest that the scribe Theodoros took an interest in such matters, especially Text 66, a text
on astrology and sand divination, and some of the passages from Text 56, Theodoret of Kyr-
ros’ Cure of the Pagan Maladies. This is discussed further in Chapter 5.
57
Cod. Vat. gr. 1087, f. Ir–v (VAN DIETEN 1973, I, 50).
58
KENNEDY 1999, 136.
59
SEARBY 2003a, 341f.
60
Cf. SEARBY 2003a, 342.
134
Rhetorical texts
ades (Text 42), a hymn to the Theotokos (Text 33), and a gnomology con-
taining excerpts from Constantine Manasses’ Synopsis Chronike (Text 38).
There is also, somewhat unexpectedly perhaps, a Latin poem in Gr 8. Text
77 is Ausonius’ poem De institutione viri boni.61 This poem appears along-
side those texts in U15 which are set bilingually, in Latin with a Greek trans-
lation above. The Ausonius poem was apparently not intended to have a
translation accompany it, because the lines are set much closer on the page.
An hypothesis may be that Theodoros wished to practice writing in a human-
ist hand, and needed another model text for this.
The rhetorical topic of praise and lament on cities has already been intro-
duced. There is a poem on the same theme, Text 51. Michael Choniates’
Elegy on Athens is a small lament in twelve-syllable verse, which he wrote
when he was the bishop there in the early thirteenth century. He deplores
what has been lost over the centuries of ancient Athens and describes the
sorry state of the medieval “rural” town. The poem has been shown to intri-
cately combine the monody with ekphrastic and erotic discourse as we know
it from twelfth-century novelistic writings.62
Two epigrams from the Palatine Anthology are included in Gr 8, AP IX
359–360 (Text 58). The first is by Posidippus of Pella (ca. 310–240 BCE),
the second (although headed by
^
^, “by the same author” in Gr 8) is
presumably written by Metrodoros, who was active at the turn of the sixth
century.63 Together these create a contrastive pair of epigrams, where the
second one apparently was created as a close variation and comment on the
first. In Posidippus’ poem, a pessimistic picture of life is given. “What’s the
best path to take in life?” the poet asks, and goes on to enumerate all the
difficulties and anxieties which a human being inevitably comes across. “It
all boils down, then, to a choice of two: never to be born or, once born, to die
on the spot.”64 To this Metrodoros retorts: “Pursue every path in life [...]
There is, then, no choice of two, never to be born or, once born, to die; for
all in life is great.” This rhetorical sport, where one emulates a poem and
makes something new out of it, was not a new phenomenon in Byzantium,
although it must have been a very appropriate pursuit, given the general ven-
eration of ancient literature.65 With its focus on how to improve one’s argu-
61
Ausonius’ poem has also been transmitted in manuscripts as (pseudo-)Vergilian. See further
CLAUSEN 1966, 165–168.
62
The discussion is found in the comment by Marc Lauxtermann on Panagiotis Agapitos’
report on Byzantine vernacular romances: see AGAPITOS 2004, 65f. (debate in Symbolae
Osloenses 79:1).
63
The popularity of these epigrams is shown by their inclusion into numerous florilegia (cf.
GOW & PAGE 1965, II, 502).
64
Transl. Frank Nisetich (GUTZWILLER 2005, 47).
65
Plutarch’s discussion of how the poets’ wordings may be re-written to better suit a certain
moral also goes to show how an active reader could go about using the texts; cf. examples in
Plut. Mor. I, 33 (from How the young man should study poetry). On the infidus author in
Greco-Roman literature, who selects from and modifies his sources, repeating with a differ-
135
4 The contents of Gr 8
mentation and how to vary one’s speech, the rhetorical education would also
have encouraged this activity of re-writing.
The epigram as a poetic genre is often associated with the short, perhaps
witty, always elegant pieces such as the ones just mentioned. As Marc Laux-
termann has shown, though, the Byzantine epigrammatic genre is so much
more than that; Byzantine epigrams may, for example, easily turn into full-
length poetic texts.66 Two such poems are present in Gr 8, one on an explic-
itly Christian subject, the Last Judgment, and one composed as a lament on
the occasion of a shipwreck. The former (Text 73) could have been referred
to the section on theological texts, below, while the latter (Text 74) was kept
here as an example of rhetorical splendor. But since these two texts are
transmitted in connection to each other in other manuscripts as well, I prefer
to discuss them together.67 As in the case with the praise-and-blame piece on
Biblical women mentioned above, one may assume that epideictic epigrams,
poetic showpieces, were created on secular as well as Christian topics. Both
of these poems display technical and rhetorical skill and compositional
awareness. Text 73 (inc. æ
$ <¯= $) is an anacreontic poem writ-
ten by Emperor Leo VI (Leo the Wise). In Gr 8 the title is missing, but in
other manuscripts it is usually referred to as
="
">68 The
poem is organized acrostically, something which goes for the next poem
also, Text 74. This text, which has not been identified in Gr 8 before, is Con-
stantine Sikeliotes’ “anacreontic alphabet” (inc. |> #=%).69
Text 46, a strophic poem in fifteen-syllable verse, has suffered the fate of
two misleading designations, Carmen paraeneticum and “
^ \.” Let
us begin with the latter. The genuine Spaneas poem goes back to the twelfth
century but has seen many versions as regards its length, contents, and lan-
guage form. These versions, however, have one thing in common: the close
correspondence to a certain florilegium, the so-called Excerpta Parisina.70
All the strophes in the Spaneas build upon a suite of sayings borrowed from
ence, see ROSENMEYER 1992, 147–151. On the literary tradition of epigram pairs written by
the same author, so-called companion pieces, see KIRSTEIN 2002.
66
LAUXTERMANN 2003, 23. On the use of the term @$< in Byzantine texts, see LAUX-
TERMANN 2003, 26–34.
67
The same two poems are combined in at least two other manuscripts, Barocc. 133 (end of
14th c.) and Vindob. Theol. gr. 265 (14th c.).
68
A clue to the identity of the first poem is actually provided already in the pinax by Nicholas
de la Torre, where it was labeled /
`"
"=" (see p. 66). Torallas
Tovar’s description of this and the next text as “[m]áximas en orden alfabético” is inadequate
(TORALLAS TOVAR 1994, 238). Pietro Matranga’s Greek editio princeps from 1850 and
Jacopo Pontani’s 1603 Latin version of the same poem are available in PG 107, 309–314;
MATRANGA 1850, II, 683–688. See also CICCOLELLA 1989; on Leo VI and his literary activity,
see ANTONOPOULOU 1997.
69
Ed. MONACO 1951; MATRANGA 1850, II, 689–692.
70
These sayings, which belong to the larger florilegial collection Corpus Parisinum, were
edited as a separate collection by Leo Sternbach (STERNBACH 1894). They are found on ff.
83r–121v in Par. gr. 1168.
136
Rhetorical texts
Epistolography
The writing of letters was a major application of rhetoric in late antiquity as
well as in the Byzantine centuries. Epistolography is often put forward as a
central literary genre, or even the genre in which the Byzantines excelled the
most. Letters can certainly be literature, but they were also part of people’s
lives in a more pragmatic way. Since most of the letters extant in manu-
scripts were probably deliberately composed to be of lasting value, even to
be “published” if one were lucky, they are hardly representative of Byzan-
tine letter-writing as a whole. The late ancient papyrus letters which reflect
71
The earlier theory was that the Spaneas poem built directly on Isocrates’ speech To De-
monicus, but George Danezis has convincingly argued that the gnomology is the source of all
the sayings in the poem (DANEZIS 1987; cf. KRUMBACHER 1897, 802f.).
72
Vat. Barb. II 99, f. 4v; LUNDSTRÖM 1902, 3.
73
DANEZIS 1987, 214.
74
Twelve manuscripts are known to transmit this poem (15th–18th c.). Lundström based his
edition on six of them, Gr 8 included. For the manuscripts and editions of “Gruppe IV:
Pseudo-Spaneas,” see DANEZIS 1987, 209f.
75
“Having received an honor, reward those whom you have at your hands, inspiring awe even
as you utter one word, because an honor escapes on swift feet, only the memory of you stays
on.”
137
4 The contents of Gr 8
76
A discussion of this epistolary category is found in MULLETT 1981; on Byzantine epistolo-
graphy at large, see also HATLIE 1996; GRÜNBART 2007.
77
Antonio Garzya has stressed that letters, though deliberately well-wrought, were still a form
of Gebrauchsliteratur, something that was consumed immediately at reception, and also fit
for practical purposes, through recycling of their topoi and themes, wording and imagery.
Thus new letters could be written as intellectual “palimpsests” on those one had received and
read (GARZYA 1981).
78
On friendship as an epistolary topos, see KARLSSON 1962, esp. chs. 1 and 3.
79
The instructions that Gregory of Nazianzos presented to his nephew Nikoboulos (Ep. 51)
are often referred to as a kind of measuring stick for Byzantine letters. According to Gregory,
letters should have the properties of \
, }¬ , and _, i.e., they should be concise,
clear, and pleasant. Cf. DENNIS 1986; GRÜNBART 2007, 125–128.
80
“Der Gattung ist ein spielerischer Umgang mit den literarischen Vorfahren immanent”
(GRÜNBART 2007, 137).
138
Rhetorical texts
more or less chronological order, but I will also look at the position of these
texts inside the manuscript, to see if that can help us assess their functions.
Ancient letters
Texts 8–9, 11b
The larger share of the letters in Gr 8 stems from late antiquity, but some are
even earlier in origin. The first such group, the Hippocratic letters (Text 8),
belongs to what is sometimes referred to as the “Persian” epistolary novel.81
Their authorship is considered spurious, and dating the letters is also prob-
lematic: Wesley Smith only states that “whatever their date of composition,
the letters were added to the collection of medical works at a time later than
the two [pseudepigraphic] speeches,” i.e. after the last quarter of the third
century BCE.82 The outline of contents in the three letters transmitted in Gr 8
is the following: (8) Artaxerxes wants the Coans to surrender Hippocrates to
him for being insolent, or else he will destroy their city. (9) The Coans an-
swer that they will not give in to his claims. (1) Artaxerxes laments the
plague which is ravaging among his people and asks Petos to send him word
of where to find a remedy.83 As Niklas Holzberg points out, there is both
satire and realism in the glimpses that we get from the Hippocratic letters.84
An important theme is also the interaction between intellectuals and those in
power: Hippocrates will not help the enemy, and the gold that Artaxerxes
offers is less influential than a wise word.
Another fictitious letter in Gr 8 dealing with illness is attributed to Dio-
cles of Karystos, who in the fourth century BCE was a renowned physician
in Athens (latter part of Text 11). This letter, probably stemming from the
first century BCE, is discussed below, in connection with the medical texts.
The Anacharsis letters (Text 9) form another instance of fictitious letters.
There was in the sixth century BCE an historical person with the name
Anacharsis, known to us through Herodotos’ writings. This Scythian trav-
eled widely and came to Greece to learn about the Greek way of life. When
81
On epistolary novels as a genre, see HOLZBERG 1994 (the Hippocratic letters are dealt with
specifically on pp. 22–38); and ROSENMEYER 1994.
82
SMITH 1990, 6. According to Dimitrios Sakales they derive from the 1st c. BCE (SAKALES
1989, 17, n. 1).
83
The order of the texts is obviously reversed compared to the logical explication of the
novel: the introductory letter (Ep. 1) follows after Epp. 8 and 9, but this is probably not a
deliberate choice made by Theodoros. The manuscript tradition of these letters is very com-
plex; the papyri only contain letters 3–6 and 11, and some manuscripts also seem to corrobo-
rate that the sequence 3–9 was the core to which the first two letters were then added as an
introduction to the letters that follow; cf. SMITH 1990, 18 and 37. In its sequencing of the
letters Gr 8 corresponds with Cod. Monac. gr. 490 (15th c.), where Hipp. Epp. 3–9 and 1 are
presented in the same way. Moreover, it also contains the Anacharsis Epp. 1–8 (+ No. 9 mu-
til.) in the same position as in Gr 8, i.e. directly after Hippocrates. According to Franz
Heinrich Reuters’ edition of the Anacharsis letters, both of these manuscripts are dependent
on Cod. Vatic. gr. 1353, dated to 1462 (REUTERS 1957, 42).
84
HOLZBERG 1994, 22.
139
4 The contents of Gr 8
he returned home, this was not appreciated and he was put to death by his
own people, says Herodotos.85 The memory of Anacharsis became idealized,
and eventually he was even counted among the Seven Sages.86 However, the
epistolary tradition is much later than Anacharsis himself; the pseudonymous
letter collection was produced in the first half of the third century BCE,
when the Cynic movement made him into a hero.87 Gr 8 presents us with
Epp. 1–8: the first two letters spell out that Greeks and barbarians (those
who speak other languages) should be seen as equal, and hospitality should
apply to everyone, without difference. In customs and outer appearance peo-
ple differ, but wisdom and foolishness are the same everywhere. The rest of
the letters are an appeal for a simple, righteous life and fair government. In
this they display the same kind of sentiment as we find in some of the other
texts in Gr 8: Stephanites and Ichnelates (Text 3) and Isocrates’ speech To
Demonicus (Text 5), both of which are regarded as Prince’s Mirrors.
85
Hdt. 4. 76–77. On the Anacharsis legend and its florilegial transmission, see KINDSTRAND
1981.
86
The tradition of the Seven Sages is not entirely stable: the version in Gr 8, for example,
does not include Anacharsis (Text 59, f. 279r). On this tradition, see further KINDSTRAND
1981, 33–50.
87
This means that the Anacharsis letters may be the oldest extant collection which unques-
tionably is made up of pseudonymous, fictitious letters (REUTERS 1963, 2). The dating is
mainly based upon linguistic traits, but also on geographical information in the letters; cf.
REUTERS 1963, 3f. and 1957, 11f. Patricia Rosenmeyer argues that pseudonymous letters
occupy a kind of middle-ground between embedded letters (such as we meet in historical and
novelistic works) and the epistolary novel; she sees them as influenced by the former and
suggestive of the latter; ROSENMEYER 2001, 193, and 209–217.
88
“As a mother I have sent children to a father, me—a mother by nature, to you—a father of
eloquence. That I may still take care of them, you should take care of them.” (Gr. Naz., Ep.
236). Why someone even bothered transmitting it, is difficult to understand. The topic, how-
ever, is similar to Basil’s Epp. 1 and 3 to Libanios, above (numbered according to the corre-
spondence of Libanios and Basil; they equal Epp. 335 and 337 in the Benedictine edition of
Basil’s letters; see also n. 94, below). I find it less plausible to see the letter as something
Gregory sent “im Namen der Mutter des Jünglings,” as Marie-Madeleine Hauser-Meury has
it, and read it rather as if Gregory likens his own role to that of a mother; cf. HAUSER-MEURY
1960, 113).
89
This is the case for example in Theophilos Korydalleus’ letter manual (RHOBY 2007, 416–
418). A couple of letter manuals of late antique or early Byzantine origin have been transmit-
ted under the names of Demetrios of Phaleron, Libanios and Proklos. On these, see RABE
140
Rhetorical texts
1909; WEICHERT 1910. See also Chapter 5, below, concerning the formulary in Gr 8, ff. 320–
323 (Text 81).
90
Although cataloged as just three items in my inventory of Gr 8, the actual number of letters
by these two authors is larger: Text 67 = Bas. Ep. 2. Text 68 = Lib.–Bas. Epp. 7; 1; 15–22; 2–
6; 8–9; 13–14; 10–12. Text 70 = Bas. Epp. 330; 332; 186; 187.
91
The full title on f. 286r is:
^ @ *<$
> # $ _ $
$
^ <#¨ ~#$ > <
> = #< "$
%.
92
As Wolf-Dieter Hauschild summarizes the matter, “Die Echtheit der Korrespondenz
zwischen Basilius und Libanius ist seit den Zweifeln Garniers und Marans [PG 29, CLIX]
mehrfach bestritten worden. Bis heute hat das Problem keine allgemein akzeptierte Lösung
gefunden [...]. Die auf stilistischen Beobachtungen basierende Kritik an der Echtheit (z.B. bei
Laube und Foerster) kann nicht definitiv überzeugen; sie müßte umfassender und detaillierter
begründet werden” (HAUSCHILD 1993, 243). Unquestionably spurious are Letters 9, 13, and
141
4 The contents of Gr 8
issue still under dispute—it is at least possible that the communication took
place.93 Whatever the truth, the position of Gr 8 is unwavering: Theodoros
has meticulously marked each letter with either µ" # $´ or
$# µ"$´.94 The subject matter of the letters varies: there are letters
of recommendation, as Basil sends young men to join Libanios’ teaching,
and Libanios’ replies to these (Epp. 1; 15; 2; 3; 12). There are comments on
everyday conditions and practical matters: Basil in Ep. 16 “while I wrote it, I
covered this letter with snow, so that you may feel how cold it is and under-
stand how it is to be locked in by the grim winter. We live in tombs here
until spring brings our corpses back to life;” Epp. 13 and 14: Libanios needs
rafters—can Basil send them to him? This could of course not be said with-
out due rhetorical meandering. Basil answers with more of this wordplay and
teasing, the key message being: “have sent 300 rafters to you.” Epp. 3–6 are
linked to and comment on each other, praising the eloquence of the other in a
quest for humbleness and mutual admiration. They are letters about letter-
writing, something which could make them even more interesting as “model
letters” for a scribe like Theodoros. Other letters, too, comment on the lack
of letters or the difficulty in writing them: Ep. 7 Libanios to Basil: Are you
still mad at me? If not, why don’t you write me? Ep. 22 Basil: “Receiving
the letters you write, joy; but when asked to reply to your letters, struggle.”
Ep. 10: Basil has not heard from Libanios for ages and ends with an “Ok,
bye then”—which sounds more like a “well, screw you, then!”—“Write if
you wish, don’t write if that suits you better.” To this Libanios in Ep. 11 says
“I’m sorry” (although Libanios actually needed 300 words to say this and
make it sound like it was Basil who had wronged him).
Epp. 17–20 create an intriguing appendage to another text in Gr 8, Text
27. I give an abridged paraphrase of the first letter, from Basil to Libanios:
14, and this probably goes for Letter 8 as well (HAUSCHILD 1993, 244). On the authenticity of
the correspondence, see also CRIBIORE 2007, 100f.
93
Raffaella Cribiore states that “Basil was indeed a student of Libanius, but not in Antioch
and not for long.” Basil took advantage of the teachings of philosophers and rhetors during his
stay in Constantinople (in 348 or 349 CE), precisely the period when Libanios taught in Ni-
comedia and Constantinople. A letter of Basil’s brother, Gregory of Nyssa, corroborates this,
since Basil is there called “student” (=
¬) of Libanios (Ep. 13); CRIBIORE 2007, 100.
94
I number these mutual letters according to Foerster’s edition of Libanios (Epistularum
Basilii et Libanii quod fertur commercium; FOERSTER 1922, 11, 572–597. This means that
Lib.–Bas. Epp. 1–22 equal Bas. Epp. 335–356 in Garnier & Maran’s edition of Basil’s letters
(usually called the Benedictine edition of 1839; PG 32, 1077–1097); the letters in Gr 8 are set
in the following sequence: Epp. 7; 1; 15–22; 2–6; 8–9; 13–14; 10–12.
142
Rhetorical texts
95
Lib. Decl. 26: Ô# <ò #Ñ# < ¡
> <<Ò## .
96
On the transmission and authenticity of the correspondence, see EVIEUX 1976, 329–335.
There is no modern edition of Isidore’s whole correspondence; for the Greek wording of the
above letters, see PG 78, 401 and 292f.
143
4 The contents of Gr 8
[To Quintinianos:]97
Harsh rumors trouble me and bring offensive tidings. Some people say that
you were so mad and out of your mind, so as to wish to bring this child who
by God was made capable of receiving all erudition, to carry weapons and go
on a cheap and despicable campaign, a playground of death. Now, if you
have not completely suffered a loss of wits, give up this confused plan. Do
not put a light out which endeavors to glow brilliantly, but allow him to
devote himself to studies. That other dignity, or rather penalty, you should
procure for other vagrants, those who go well together with the common lack
of learning. (Ep. , 390)
The man who takes pleasure in combat, and enjoys the clamor, and keenly
pursues that which is repulsive to everybody else—what should one aptly call
him, if not an evil demon, who of his own accord has transformed his nature?
Because already here, ahead of time, Christ punishes the demons, and in that
other place he has promised them an eternal fire along with their father. Ei-
ther bring an end to your quest for a tumultuous life, or know that already
here you are liable to whipping, and beyond, you will not escape vengeance.
(Ep. , 167)
One certainly wonders what made Theodoros select these two letters and no
other from Isidore’s vast collection. Had he himself once wished to be a
soldier? Did he have a son or another person close to him, whom he needed
to dissuade from walking that road? Mere speculations, yes, but out of 2000
letters, why these pacifist statements? One may object here that we cannot
know if Theodoros selected these two letters out of a corpus of Isidore’s
writings or not. True, but he still chose to put these two in his book, even if
he happened to stumble upon them in another context. I find the choice of
the subject matter fascinating.
Byzantine epistolographers
Texts (42), 43, (72)
Theophylact Simokates is perhaps less known than many other writers of the
early Byzantine period. He lived in the early part of the seventh century, and
wrote, among other things, a history of the reign of Emperor Maurice (582–
602). As an author of fictitious letters he has been rather unfairly judged by
some scholars: Eduard Norden and Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff
used words like “silly” and “grimacing monster” to describe him,98 but, for-
tunately, their yardstick of estimation is now out-of-date. In the wake of the
ongoing reappraisal of Hellenistic poetry and post-classical rhetoric has
97
The addressee Quintinianos is not mentioned in Gr 8, and neither is Esaias, the soldier, in
the next letter. These have been added from Migne’s text in PG 78.
98
NISSEN 1937, 17.
144
Rhetorical texts
99
MOFFATT 1984, 345.
100
The sequence is such that every third letter is moralizing, every third rustic, and likewise
with the courtesan letters. Since the collection begins and ends with moralizing letters, there
are all in all 29 of these and 28 letters each of the other two groups. The only exception to the
sequencing is Epp. 26–27, though they may have just swapped places in the manuscript tradi-
tion (cf. MOFFATT 1984, 348; according to Zanetto, the wrong sequence of Epp. 26–27 was
present already in the archetype; in four manuscripts it has been corrected to the more logical
sequence with regard to contents 25–27–26–28; ZANETTO 1985, xxv). Adriana Pignani also
breaks the sequencing by putting Ep. 20 in the courtesan group, epistole amorosi (PIGNANI
1979–80, 51; Moffatt, as above, n. 14, suggests likewise), but the letter must first and fore-
most count as a rustic one: one farmer writes to another complaining that the girl he is court-
ing does not love him back. He had just sent her wild pears as a gift, “but she threw away the
thread and rose from the loom, took the pears and gave to the pigs.” With amusing result
Theophylact combines the epistolary topos of gifts accompanying letters and the topoi in love
letters of blind fate and torturing erotes. The clash between the farmer’s anguish (“But I cry!
Terrible Eros has wronged me...”) and the picture of the girl throwing his precious pears to the
hogs, is downright funny.
101
Simoc Epp. 1, 3–4, 9–10, 13–19, 26, 29, 34, 37, 46, 60–61, 66. Epp. 14, 17, and 29 are
rustic; Epp. 3, 9, 15, 18, 26, 60, and 66 are courtesan letters. The most recent editor of Simo-
kates’ letters, Giuseppe Zanetto, has not mentioned Gr 8 in his surveys of manuscripts and did
not include any account of these letters in his editorial work, most likely because he could not
know about them: Graux’s catalog is entirely silent, Torallas Tovar gave the incipit but no
identification (cf. ZANETTO 1976; ZANETTO 1982b; ZANETTO 1985). The selection of letters in
Gr 8 does not correspond to that of any other known manuscript (cf. ZANETTO 1982b, Appen-
dice II), but a preliminary collation of the texts indicates that Gr 8 is related to Zanetto’s
“familia a” (which, in Zanetto’s stemma, is made up of Par. gr. 690, Par. gr. 2991A, Vat.
Urb. gr. 134, and Ambros. A 115 sup.; ZANETTO 1985, xxiii).
102
Cf. ZANETTO 1982a.
103
SPRAGUE 1972, 31. Cf. Diod. Sic. 12. 53, on Gorgias’ enormous fees; Paus. 10. 18, 7, on
his statue of gold in Delphi; Ael. Var. 12. 32, on his purpurean clothes.
145
4 The contents of Gr 8
104
Plut. Arist. 6. 1; trans. Perrin. Herodotos calls Aristeides “the best and most just man in
Athens” (Hdt 8. 79).
105
That Theophylact really strove to chisel out the form of the letters is obvious from Theodor
Nissen’s article, where Nissen brings the nineteenth-century editor Rudolph Hercher to the
book, showing that his “emendations” had broken up the prose-rhythm of Theophylact’s
clause endings (NISSEN 1932). Cf., however, Wolfram Hörandner, who argues that Nissen
may in some cases have gone too far in his defense of Theophylact, through adding new
conjectures rythmi gratia (HÖRANDNER 1981, 82).
106
John Lachanas was a contemporary colleague to Tzetzes, a teacher who apparently got an
appointment at the " , the arsenal of Constantinople. Yet another letter from Tzetzes
to Lachanas is extant (Ep. 105), but here he is called diakonos instead of grammatikos. The
Archbishop Eustathios of Thessalonike also sent a letter to Lachanas (GRÜNBART 1996, 222,
n. 245).
107
¹
+ @
#¤
\_
¯ º
¯¨ ¼ + <
> ¾ $ ,
>
> ¿
¨ ¼ + ,
> "#
¨
> <, ¼
Á
$
+ @<%
,
+
@}\ (Gr 8, f. 217r).
146
Rhetorical texts
Text 72, the letter from Nikephoros Gregoras to the Grand Logothete Me-
tochites was discussed above, among the oratory works.
147
4 The contents of Gr 8
The three letters in Gr 8 (Text 25) all belong to the first category. Ep. 22,
written shortly after Plethon’s death in 1452, is addressed to the two sons of
Plethon, Demetrios and Andronikos. It is a letter of condolence and venera-
tion: Bessarion eulogizes his teacher Plethon as the most admirable man in
Greece, who in himself had Plato’s soul come down to earthly life anew.
Epp. 49–50, though written some ten years later, are actually closely con-
nected to the Plethon-text we have just encountered above. The controversy
between Aristotelians and Platonics continued after Plethon’s last word was
said,110 and one of the scholars who wrote yet another defense of Aristotle
against Plethon’s ideas was Theodore Gazes. His treatise is not extant, but
we still have Bessarion’s reply to it.111 On another occasion Gazes opposed
Plethon’s critique on the Aristotelian category of “substance.”112 Gazes’
views were furthermore attacked by Michael Apostoles, and he, in his turn,
was rebutted through Andronikos Kallistos’ writings.113 Bessarion was con-
vinced that no inherent opposition was to be found between Plato’s and Aris-
totle’s teachings, and he tried to mediate in this heated debate, both through
his own reconciliatory treatises, and through personal addresses to people
involved. This is where the other two letters in Gr 8 come in.
Ep. 49 is the reprimand Bessarion sent to Michael Apostoles, scolding
him for his youthfully injudicious comments on Gazes’ treatise.114 “One
should not abuse one’s opponents; rather, it is by providing proof and logical
arguments that one should both support a friend and defend oneself against
the enemy,” he says. “If indeed Plethon has flung mud at Aristotle, and if
Theodore has done it with Plethon, and if you have spoken ill of Theodore,
then all things said seem to me to be past reason and need. For it is not pos-
sible to reproach Aristotle who has done us so much good; neither Plethon
who is wise and a truly good man (well, if it were not for the fact that he
started the abuse and those who defend themselves could be granted some
pardon...).” One could argue that here we have the key to why the scribe
110
So much so, that even after half a century there was a scholar who composed a critique of
Aristotle and had it published under the pseudonym of Pletho himself. On this late and some-
what misdirected support of Pletho written by the Augustinian friar Nicolaus Scutellius, see
further MONFASANI 2005.
111
MOHLER 1942, 88–90. Theodore Gazes (ca. 1400–1475) was born in Thessalonica but fled
to Italy in 1430. He took part in the Church Council at Florence-Ferrara, and as the successor
of Nicholas Sagundino (on him, see more below) he taught Greek in Ferrara in 1440–1449.
He also enjoyed the patronage of King Alfonso of Naples and spent his last years in Calabria,
translating Greek texts into Latin. Aristotle was one of the authors to whom he dedicated his
translating efforts (GEANAKOPLOS 1989, 68–90).
112
MOHLER 1942, 153–58.
113
MONFASANI 1992, 238. For the contributions by Michael Apostoles and Andronikos Kal-
listos, see MOHLER 1942, 159–203.
114
This letter was written at Viterbo’s thermal baths and is dated °ô > @
>
·<
, > ²
^ " (Gr 8, f. 167r). This ought to refer to the night between
the ninth and tenth of May. Cf. however Mohler: “Der Brief stammt vom 19. Mai 1462”
(MOHLER 1942, 511; the edited text, p. 513, reads @
>
Õ).
148
Rhetorical texts
Theodoros included only the psogos part of Plethon’s letter (Text 24): the
offensive tone in that part of Plethon’s letter is precisely what Bessarion
refers to in Ep. 49.
Bessarion defends Plethon as a thinker even though he does not agree
with his views, and the instructions he gives to Apostoles are plain: “If you
wish to obey me, you should hold both Aristotle and Plato as the wisest,
follow them in their tracks, and make each of them your guide.”115 Bessarion
uses the rest of the letter to further explicate his arguments for this, and also
to explain why Theodore Gazes and Andronikos Kallistos are to be com-
mended for their contributions to the debate. Bessarion also exhorted Apos-
toles to learn from Andronikos. Apparently Bessarion then decided to send
Andronikos Kallistos a copy of Ep. 49, because Ep. 50 is just a short note
which he attached: “From Cardinal Bessarion to Andronikos Kallistos, to
study. I read both what Michael confusingly had composed against Theodore
and your criticism of him. I have delivered my verdict and vote on them, and
I now send you a copy of what he received. For it is neither necessary nor
easy for one who has been charmed, to write more extensively to you. (I also
put down from where and when I sent it to Michael).”
The next letter in Gr 8 also comments on the writings of Theodore Gazes
and Michael Apostoles. It was sent to the same Andronikos Kallistos from
Nicholas Sagundino (Text 26). Sagundino—in Greek Sekoundinós—was a
Venetian from Negroponte (Euboia) who had been taken prisoner by the
Ottomans when they sacked Thessalonica in 1430. Thanks to his linguistic
skills he served as interpreter at the Council of Florence-Ferrara, where he
also made Bessarion’s acquaintance.116 With the exception of only four let-
ters, his extant correspondence is written in Latin.117 The letter to Andronikos
Kallistos was sent from Viterbo in early June 1462, and Sagundino definitely
sides with Theodore Gazes and Andronikos Kallistos against Michael Apos-
115
õ
÷ @ Ó=Õ, £#Ñ
% |
Ò# }%
Ñ
<Ô ,
’ _
Ô
¡× , ¡Ñ
< ×
^ ^. Gr 8 has =Õ instead of Ó=Õ, but
that reading is clearly wrong.
116
Already from these few letters of Greek humanist scholars, it is obvious how closely knit
this community was. We have met some of these names already in Chapter 3 (especially
persons who worked as scribes on commission of Bessarion and others; Michael Apostoles,
Michael Souliardos, Antonios Damilas). Another entry to this circle of colleagues and friends,
several of whom had originally met at Florence-Ferrara, is offered us in Text 81 (see Chapter
5). The position as interpreter at the Council was first offered to Francesco Filelfo, who had to
renounce it for political reasons. The skillfulness of Nicholas Sagundino, however, is well
attested: he could translate the speeches of both parties straight off in the Council sessions
(MOHLER 1923, 123).
117
The edition of this letter is still the one made by Boissonade in 1833 (reprinted by Migne,
PG 161, 691–696). Another Greek letter of Sagundino’s was edited by Mastrodemetres
(MASTRODEMETRES 1965). According to Mastrodemetres’ survey, the letter from Sagundino
to Andronikos Kallistos is extant in fifteen manuscripts, but he did not include Gr 8 among
them (MASTRODEMETRES 1970, 149–154). Sagundino also wrote a treatise on the “rules” of
Greek and Latin letter-writing, “De epistolari dicendi genere” (MASTRODEMETRES 1970, 129).
149
4 The contents of Gr 8
toles.118 That he is more verbose than Bessarion is also clear; in the eleven
manuscript pages that his letter covers in Gr 8 he says less than Bessarion
did in half the space.
One text which definitely belongs to the subject of epistolography, but on
a more practical level, is Text 81. Moreover, it also gives some interesting
perspectives on people connected with Bessarion’s network of humanists.
This text is a mid-fifteenth century collection of letter-headings, a formulary
which provides instructions mainly on how to address public officials of
various kinds. Text 81 is dealt with more thoroughly in Chapter 5, below.
As we have seen above, there are letters of many different kinds in Gr 8, and
presumably they ended up in the manuscript for a number of reasons. The
118
The town of Viterbo is known as a Papal resort, both due to its stout walls which gave
refuge in times of strife, and its hot springs which were thought to be beneficial for the Pope’s
health. In 1462 Pope Pius II (Enea Silvio Piccolomini, 1405–1464) went to Viterbo seeking
relief for his gout, and Nicholas Sagundino, who was the Pope’s secretary at the time, appar-
ently accompanied him there (MASTRODEMETRES 1964, 254).
150
Philosophical and theological texts
sheer reading experience must not be overlooked: there are more than a few
examples of amusing and intriguing subject matter. The skill with which
many of the letters were wrought would have contributed to the pleasure of
reading as well: the polished language form, the rythmical clause endings,
the disguised or open allusions to other literary works, et cetera. This would
also have made the letters suitable as models if one were to create letters of
one’s own. The epistolary production of authors like Libanios, Basil the
Great, and Gregory of Nazianzos soon became models of style, and they
remained so throughout the Byzantine period and even beyond.119 These late
antique letters were all placed as a group by Theodoros, in U13 (one letter by
Gregory excepted). In that same unit we also find Nikephoros Gregoras’
letter. The ancient fictitious letters are placed in U3, in close proximity to
other narrative works, and they probably functioned as such, too. Gregory of
Nazianzos’ Ep. 114, also in U3, may easily be regarded as that kind of text
as well, with its focus on fables and stories. The Anacharsis letters also dis-
play similarities in subject matter to Isocrates’ speech To Demonicus, as both
deal with paraenetics (advice on how to lead a virtuous life and how to gov-
ern justly), and these go together in the same codicological unit.
Tzetzes’ letter does not really strike one as a letter: the contents are too
much of a catalog, and the direct addressing of the letter’s recipient is vague.
This text together with the commentary to it (Chiliades) make up U8, and
they are immediately followed by the collection of Simokates’ letters in U9.
The humanist letters, from the circle of Plethon and Bessarion, are also
placed as a group and follow upon another text by Plethon: On Virtues. One
could argue that these were included because they reflect the philosophical
debates in the Quattrocento, but they are also interesting as specimens of
derogatory letter-writing, either in themselves or as comments on other of-
fensive writings. These letters are situated in U6, where we also have other
fifteenth-century writings, by Mark Eugenikos (Texts 30–31). In the same
unit, U6, we come across the two letters by Isidore of Pelousion, interesting
for their strong viewpoints on warfare and on a soldier’s career.
It seems quite clear that Theodoros’ organization of his book, or at least
of the contents inside each codicological unit, was very much premeditated.
We are thus encouraged to give some respect to miscellaneous manuscripts
like Gr 8: the first impression may be that a book looks disorganized and
confused, but it may be worth the effort to try to look beneath the surface.
119
Cf. GRÜNBART 2007, 129.
151
4 The contents of Gr 8
152
Philosophical and theological texts
Creator must prevail (no need to add here that the discussion of the “first
cause” has continued throughout the centuries and no less so in the fifteenth
century, with its concern to link Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy to
Christian dogmas). One may be tempted to put Theodoret’s argument down
to Scriptural influence, but he may actually just as well be referring to
Plato.123 Theodoret proceeds with Democritus’ theory of the void and the
solid, Metrodorus of Chios on the undivided, and so forth. The fifth element
is mentioned in passing, form and matter discussed at length (the name-
dropping naturally includes Plato and Aristotle, but also Xenocrates, Thales,
Heracleitus, Pythagoras, Epicurus, Crates, Zeno, and many more). Now, how
could these philosophers be right and trustworthy about cosmos, when “they
not only disagree vehemently with each other but also at the same time bor-
row from each other,” Theodoret argues.124
In the next excerpt in Gr 8, Theodoret does refer to Plato’s Timaeus and
Republic, commending some of Plato’s theories on cosmological matters and
challenging others. As for the excerpting technique, the joint was apparently
skillfully wrought, rendering the omission of paragraphs 17–31 nigh to unde-
tectable. Having mentioned Aëtius, Plutarch, Porphyry, and Xenophon in
§ 31, Theodoret says “but all of these I leave aside, instead focussing on
Plato” (Thdt, Affect 4.32). In the excerpt of Gr 8, <Ë +
+ ·##
Ã
# Ó®% has become <Ë +
·##,
#., which here
comes to serve as a reference to all the ancient philosophers mentioned in the
preceding excerpt. It is also intriguing to see that the excerpt in Gr 8 only
includes those Platonic ideas which Theodoret approved of. Shortly after the
break, in § 4.45, Theodoret continues with those Platonic theories that did
not harmonize with his own views, but that part was omitted by the excerp-
tor. Whether our scribe Theodoros was responsible for this selection himself
or got it from a model manuscript, it is still food for thought that someone at
the time, in the century which had seen so much debate on Aristotle versus
Plato, took pains to collect and include arguments for one side only—the one
pro Plato.
The two remaining passages from Theodoret treat human nature and fate.
The purpose is still to establish how the Christian views differ from the phi-
losophers’ (©
> Ò
= Ó%
}#×}% <Ñ
%, §
5.8). The greater part of the opinions of poets and philosophers is dis-
carded,125 but Plato’s teaching is, once more, seen as rewarding, although
123
On the opinion that nothing comes into being without cause, and that we therefore must
reckon with a creator, a demiurge, see Pl. Tim. 28a–29a.
124
Thdt, Affect 4.15: Â × + @
Ô
}%Óø < # Ó
Õ, ##
·##
@_ò
.
125
Aristotle gets a real scolding in §§ 5.46–47: not only did he set himself up in opposition
while Plato was still alive, showing no respect, but recklessly adopted views which were very
much inferior (##Î < _ $ _ <), such as the soul purportedly being
mortal and the earth being deprived of God’s providence.
153
4 The contents of Gr 8
The soul
Texts 6, 53, 57, (59), 60
Most of the philosophical texts in Gr 8 focus on problems which in a way
may be said to be timeless, but which were fervently discussed by fifteenth-
century humanists: the immortal human soul, and the question of fate and
predestination.126 We have already seen this in the passages from Theo-
doret’s Cure (Text 56), and the fact that these subjects were elaborated on
both with and without religious overtones is not surprising. One anonymous
text on the soul is found on ff. 254r–256v (Text 53); perhaps it was even
composed by the scribe Theodoros himself?127 “The views we hold on the
soul and its essence we expound in this wise,” it begins,128 and the subject is
then developed in several hierarchical stages, illustrated at the end of the text
with diagrams of “theories on the soul” (
®_¯ = %\%), its
properties, faculties, perceptions, states of mind, et cetera.129 The text, which
is easily comprehensible thanks to its structure, may have been compiled for
teaching purposes (or for someone who needed to sort out these matters for
his own sake). To some extent its contents overlap with the explications on
the soul in Texts 16–17; on these, see more below. It is also reminiscent of
Theodoret’s outline in §§ 5.19–22 of the Cure, although in the case of Theo-
doret a synopsis is given of the views of several philosophers (Pythagoras,
Plato, Xenocrates, Aristotle, the Stoics), whereas in Text 53 the intention
seems to be to create a coherent stance on the soul and its properties. An-
other difference is that in Text 53 there are no references whatsoever to in-
disputedly Christian ideas. A micro-text which also treats the soul and its
faculties is Text 6. This, too, is non-committal as to Christian ideas, but there
126
On the immortality of the soul, which became “one of the most important and characteris-
tic themes of Renaissance philosophy,” see KRISTELLER 1979, 181–196. Evidence of the
ongoing debate on fate is found in Plethon’s treatise %+ (PG 160, 961–964); in
several treatises on predestination and fate by George Scholarios (PETIT et al. 1928, 390–460);
in Cardinal Bessarion’s correspondence with Plethon (Epp. 18–20; MOHLER 1942, 455–465),
in Bessarion’s own treatise In calumniatorem Platonis III, 30–31; MOHLER 1927, 418–421);
and in Matthew Kamariotes’ two orations, were he attacked Plethon’s treatise (MONFASANI
1976, 207). Several of the Italian humanists also contributed to the discussion, among them
Marsiglio Ficino (see further KELLER 1957).
127
A passage in the text purportedly refers to Plato (
Õ
¹
##
@$% ~ £#
% @#
¤
%¬), but the phrasing does not seem to
have its origin there. It may derive from Theophylact Simokates’ Ep. 37; in Gr 8 this letter is
included on f. 230r.
128
Í + _ ®_¯
¯ $
¯ @
$= { . A rubricated head-
ing was meant to precede this sentence, but was never put in.
129
For a transcription of Text 53, see Appendix 1.
154
Philosophical and theological texts
130
The text, which was put as a page filler after Isocrates’ speech To Demonicus (or. 1), is
unpretentious and short enough to have been passed down in florilegia. A similar passage is
found, e.g., in Jo. Dam. virt., PG 95, 85B–C. Text 6 is included in Appendix 1.
131
Thdt, Affect 5.17–18: ~ +
< Ó
@
#Ò_ å
å
}^ ¾<^,
Ñ %¤ _
· @
#Ò_ +
¤ @Ò< Ò# .
132
Aristotle’s definition is somewhat modified:
’ Ó @
#Ò_
^
#ò
(Ar. Phys. 257b). Cf. also Ar. Metaph. 1066a.
133
Cf. Pierre Canivet’s comment on Theodoret’s definition: “Quant à l’identité que Théodoret
établit entre les termes @
#\_ et @\< , elle est assez conforme à l’usage du philoso-
phe, qui ‘emploie indifféremment les deux termes’” (Canivet 1958, 231, n. 4, referring to J.-
M. Le Blond, Logique et Méthode chez Aristote, Paris, 1939, p. 429).
134
Ar. Metaph. 1047a: @#ò#= ’ @Ò<
û, >
¤ @
#Ò_
= Ò,
@
·## @
ò % Ñ#
¨ < @Ò< Ñ#
Ó ¿. Ar.
Metaph. 1050a:
> < <
Ò#, + @Ò<
> <, >
û @Ò< #Ò<
> <
Ó >
¤ @
#Ò_ .
155
4 The contents of Gr 8
135
Scholarios, Contra Plethonis ignorationem de Aristotele iv, 28; Plethon, Contra Gennadii
defensionem Aristotelis, in PG 160, 1008); cf. WOODHOUSE 1986, 247 and 290.
136
The selection of sages in Gr 8 corresponds to Diogenes Laërtes’ list in Lives of the Phi-
losophers i. 13. Cf. also i. 41–42, on other possible constellations of sages.
137
For the Greek text, see Appendix 1. Although this specific text seems to be unknown, there
are numerous parallels to its different parts in other commentaries. See, for example, Alex.
Aphr., In Aristotelis metaphysica commentaria, ed. Hayduck, 41. 32–38; Sophonias, In Aris-
totelis libros de anima paraphrasis, ed. Hayduck, 101. 14–16; Ar. Metaph. 986a 22–26;
Heron, Geometrica, 3. 18–22.
156
Philosophical and theological texts
138
Gregory Thaumatourgos, or the Wonderworker, was a student of Origen who later became
bishop of Neocaesarea, Pontos (ca. 213 – ca. 270 CE). He wrote a panegyric on his teacher,
and a small number of his theological works are extant.
139
µ×< ®_¯ #=Óø
Ñ ¼ @_ò
Á
^
>
@
×%
@=Ò#
.
140
English translation by S.D.F. Salmond in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ROBERTS &
DONALDSON 1986, VI 54–56).
141
On the extent of the excerpts in Hayduck’s edition, see Appendix 2. John Philoponos (ca.
490 – ca. 570) taught science and philosophy in Alexandria and was a prolific author of works
which criticize both Neoplatonist and Aristotelian concepts. He contributed innovative hy-
potheses of his own, for example on dynamics (SORABJI 1987, 7–16).
157
4 The contents of Gr 8
142
The floriate initial at the outset of Text 19 is the same size as those within Text 18. The
signs that Theodoros uses to announce the end of a text and the end of a paragraph (two dots
and a line) are also the same. The size of these signs may differ, but that has more to do with
the accessible space; one may compare the sign just before Text 19 (f. 137r l. 3) with the sign
inside Text 16, on f. 128v line 10.
143
Inc.
^ "$ ¿ ~ #< # ¨ ¬, ®_¤ -
¬. For the translation of ®_ here as “natural,” cf. 1 Cor. 2:14. This state represents
human life as such without the divine dimension, i.e., body and mind but no spirit.
144
For the Greek text, see Appendix 1.
158
Philosophical and theological texts
Text 19 picks up what was said in the preceding paragraph, i.e., it further
elucidates the spiritual life and the stages one has to go through on the way
to perfection. The three stages are the purgative, the illuminative, and the
mystical (perfective).145 This is actually what was said at the end of Text 18,
but here the author goes into more detail. The aim of the purgative stage is to
throw off every poison of sin, being smoldered in the ascetic fire, hardened
and tempered in the bath of compunction, thus becoming a sharp and mighty
sword against passions and demons. When one has reached this stage of
passionlessness the illuminative stage follows: here the aim is the word of
wisdom which makes distinct the natures of beings, the recognition of divine
and human affairs, and the revelation of the mysteries of the heavenly king-
dom. The mystical stage is for those who have already run the whole course
and reached the maturity of Christ. Then one rises above everything, draw-
ing close to the first light, searching the depths of God through the Spirit.
The aim is to initiate the one thus perfected into the hidden mysteries of
God.146
The combination of texts only just touched upon shows the intricate
merging of what we may call philosophical inquiries and spiritual guidance.
There is no way to separate the religious sphere from the philosophical. The
outer wisdom ( % }$) was not necessarily on edge with the divine
Word: one read and used Aristotle and Plato as one needed and wished. This
is apparent already in the excerpts from John Philoponos’ commentary on
Aristotle. The question of the mortal soul was a stumbling block in Aris-
totle’s philosophy for Christian thinkers, but although the excerpts above
have Aristotle’s philosophy as a startingpoint, we still end up with an im-
mortal soul separable from the body, contrary to Aristotle’s original views.
This development was apparently facilitated by the fact that the excerptor
picked up Philoponos’ reasoning along the way.
145
@
\
# " %¨ =-
¬, }%
¬,
¤
# .
146
See also Appendix 1.
159
4 The contents of Gr 8
had the charm of novelty when they became accessible in new translations.147
In the wake of these debates, theologians in the East and in the West had to
adjust not only to dogmatic discrepancies but also to the different traditions
of interpreting the ancient philosophers. This tension is reflected in treatises
and letters written by many of the great intellectuals of the time: Plethon and
George Scholarios, Bessarion and the circle around him—we have already
met them above in the section on epistolography. I would like to emphasize
one point, though, something which is not always highlighted, but which
George Karamanolis has expressed very clearly:148 George Gemistos Plethon
wrote his treatise against Aristotle’s philosophy (On the differences) not
because he wanted to place himself in opposition to the Christian faith but
because he considered Plato’s philosophy to be closer to Christian doctrine
than Aristotle’s. Scholarios, on the other hand, was undertaking the same
kind of apologetic task, but favoring Aristotle over Plato. This was not a
fight over pagan versus Christian philosophy but a question of which inter-
pretation of the ancient philosophers adhered most closely to Orthodoxy.149
One of the issues that Plethon focused on was precisely the immortality of
the soul. In other treatises Plethon apparently did experiment with more eso-
teric outlooks—Zoroastrian, Pythagorean, Neoplatonic—but the dispute on
Plato versus Aristotle was an internal affair within Christian bounds.150
In addition to the Reply to George Scholarios’ Defense of Aristotle
(Text 24), there are two other works by Plethon in Gr 8: his treatise On Vir-
tues (Text 23), and a treatise on the views of the Roman Church regarding
the procession of the Holy Spirit (Text 40). The latter is clearly related to the
Council discussions, the former perhaps not, although some scholars believe
that it was composed in Italy; at least we know that John Eugenikos made a
copy of it in 1439, on his way home from Ferrara.151 Brigitte Tambrun-
Krasker argues that it may just as well be an earlier work by Plethon.152 On
Virtues was probably intended to befit a general public (as opposed to The
Laws, for example, which was written for the intimate circle of like-minded
147
For a summary of the Plato-Aristotle controversy, see for example MONFASANI 1976, 201–
229.
148
KARAMANOLIS 2002.
149
Cf. also Bessarion’s four-volume treatise In calumniatorem Platonis, where the first subti-
tle of vol. 2 reads as follows: “©
£#
% ## ý
|
\#
³
²
}%^ = $ø” (MOHLER 1927, 80).
150
Plethon had no direct knowledge of either ancient or contemporary zoroastrianism
(WOODHOUSE 1986, 63). The limitation of his “acquaintance” with Zoroaster was the so-
called Chaldean Oracles, which were made up of Platonic, Neopythagorean, Stoic, Gnostic,
and Persian elements, probably compiled in the 2nd c. CE; on these, see further DANNENFELDT
1957.
151
WOODHOUSE 1987, 179; KNÖS 1950, 178; François Masai’s view, that it was composed in
the years that followed 1439, is ruled out by John Eugenikos’ copy of the work (Par. gr.
2075); cf. MASAI 1956, 402.
152
TAMBRUN-KRASKER 1987, xxxiv.
160
Philosophical and theological texts
153
At least 65 manuscripts are known plus several editions and translations into Latin, Italian,
and other languages (TAMBRUN-KRASKER 1987, xxix; MASAI 1956, 248, n. 1).
154
Plethon’s text ends with a chart over all the virtues; this is reproduced on the front cover of
this book.
155
Reprinted in PG 160, 975–980.
156
Cyril Loukaris was the patriarch of Alexandria from 1601 and of Constantinople 1620–
1638. He was the driving force for a modern Greek translation of the New Testament (carried
out mainly by Maximos Rodios from Gallipoli and printed in Geneva after Cyril’s death in
1638). Cyril’s contacts with Protestant churches of northern Europe were ill seen in Orthodox
as well as in Catholic circles, and he was finally executed on the charges of high treason.
From a book-history point of view it is worth mentioning that Cyril Loukaris introduced the
first printing press in the Greek world: in 1627 he invited the printer Nikodemos Metaxas to
set up a press in Constantinople. Metaxas set off printing religious—mostly anti-Catholic—
books and tracts. The Jesuits, however, instigated an attack on the printing house and the
janissaries destroyed the press only a few months after it had been set up (KITROMILIDES
2006, 193–201; see also ROBERTS 1967). It is intriguing that the very next attempt to set up a
Greek press on Ottoman soil, was initiated by Patriarch Dositheos. This was installed in 1682
in the monastery of Cetatuia, close to Jassy, i.e. under the Phanariote regime in Romania.
Thirty-eight Greek books (four of them bilingual) were printed here up until 1710 (BOU-
CHARD 2005, 36).
157
This must not be confused with the treatise which often goes under the name of Reply to
Scholarios, %< $ ; "
[
)
X"?", i.e Text 24 in
Gr 8.
158
MASAI 1956, 389–392.
159
On the place of the filioque-controversy in the discussions at the Council of Ferrara-
Florence, see for example PAPADAKIS & MEYENDORFF 1994, 379–408, esp. 401f. A presenta-
tion of one of the main (pro-Greek) sources of the Council, the Memoirs of Sylvester Syro-
poulos, Grand Ecclesiarch of Hagia Sophia of Constantinople, together with some glances at
two other sources, the Acta Graeca, a record by a prounionist bishop (Dorotheos from
161
4 The contents of Gr 8
an attribution by a later reader, probably the person who owned the book
around 1546 (cf. above, p. 78): ~ } }
-
_().160 Nicholas de la Torre, who created the index to our book at El
Escorial, inaccurately attributed both this and the preceding (i.e. Plethon’s)
text to Mark Eugenikos (° }\). However, even though Text 41
does not, as far as I know, correspond with any published work of Mark
Eugenikos, bishop of Ephesus, it may perhaps communicate his answer
(}) or his views on this matter in the Council discussion of 1439. At
least there are expressions and phrases included which closely resemble
what Eugenikos uses in other council-related texts. The text is not well-
wrought but seems rather more like a draft or notes taken down.161 Mark
Eugenikos and Bessarion were appointed chief representatives at the Council
(
@
³ ´), and were granted imperial authority to reply to
the Latins’ arguments. Eugenikos seems to have come to the Council with
the earnest wish to see a durable union on dignified terms, but was dejected
by what he saw coming in the discussions. In the end, Eugenikos was the
only bishop who refused to sign the decree of union.162 Eugenikos and Bes-
sarion had known each other long, they had been classmates in John Chor-
tasmenos’ school in Constantinople and had both studied under Plethon.163
But in theological matters they stood widely apart: Bessarion, with his thor-
ough philosophical and humanist education, was influenced by the Aristote-
lian Thomism, whereas Eugenikos had a more traditional, monastic back-
ground, and had his heart set on hesychasm in its Palamite form.
Mytilene?), and the Acta Latina by the papal lawyer, Andrea of Santacroce, is given by
GEANAKOPLOS 1991. See also http://www.syropoulos.co.uk/biblio.htm.
160
This would probably be Patriarch Joseph II, who was present at the Council in Florence.
But since Mark Eugenikos was in fact sent there to represent the patriarchs of Alexandria and
Jerusalem, one cannot say for certain. Cf. TSIRPANLIS 1974, 41.
161
For the Greek text, see Appendix 1.
162
In addition to the filioque controversy, the main theological issues of divergence between
the churches were the purgatory, the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, and, of course,
the primacy of the Pope (TSIRPANLIS 1974, 50).
163
TSIRPANLIS 1974, 39.
164
Text 30:
^ *<$ °
^ } $% © %¯
¯ %$
# %. Text 31: ^
^ #<$
#\% # % >
*
¬
.
See also Appendix 1.
162
Philosophical and theological texts
thoughts (<), i.e. notes or excerpts made by someone else than the
bishop himself.165 Text 30 discusses predestination and eternal punishment;
Text 31 describes how the punishments of sinners are given in analogy with
their transgressions: deep outer darkness for those who have loved the in-
ward darkness of ignorance, the poisonous worm for sins of the flesh, Tarta-
ros for those who have grown cold in their love of God and neighbor, et cet-
era. According to George Scholarios, Mark had early on been summoned by
the Emperor to explain his theological stance on predestination.166 Could the
notes which ended up in Gr 8 have been taken down already on this occa-
sion?
Text 32 is a theological problem, $, stated briefly and answered
with the help of frequent references to Scriptural passages, much in the vein
of @%
$ , question-and-answer literature, a genre which is often
represented in miscellaneous manuscripts.167 In its subject matter it also fol-
lows neatly upon the two preceding items in Gr 8, which deal with predesti-
nation and eternal punishment. The text is anonymous, and since I have no
secondary material on it I let it speak for itself:168
Problem: How does God endure that such a large crowd of people around the
whole world perishes, all those who are incessantly destroying their lives in
sin?
Solution: Tell me, what kind of crowd are you referring to? Good people also
seemed to be in the crowd. Have you not heard that for God “all the nations
are like a drop from a bucket; they are regarded as spittle” (Isa. 40:15). Do
you not understand the unsurpassed greatness of God’s power? Have you not
heard the prophet saying “He holds the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants
on it like grasshoppers” (Isa. 40:22)?
Tell me, how many fleas did you thoughtlessly crush on your body, or
how many caterpillars on the vegetables? But a man who preserves his image
(and likeness with God) untouched and through virtue makes himself familiar
to God, him cannot even the whole world outweigh. But if he gives up the
divine portion and falls into the beastly way of life (Ps. 72:22), then an
earthworm that preserves its natural state is more preferable to God than he
is. The Lord loathes a bloodstained and deceitful man (Ps. 5:7).
Do you not see the corpse, how we all loathe it? And we cover it up with
earth, so that it does not fill everything with its worms and putrid liquids and
foul smell and decay. Such is to God the soul that has acquired sinews (mus-
cles) through sin and separated itself voluntarily from the godly life.
Punishment after death is a subject treated also in Leo VI’s poem of contri-
tion (Text 73), discussed above.
165
The text includes wordings like $ ©
(“he distinguishes, interprets that”) and #\< ©
(“he says that”).
166
PETIT et al. 1928, 428.
167
Cf. HEINRICI 1911, 6. On Greek question-and-answer literature, see also PAPADOYANNAKIS
2006.
168
For the Greek text, see Appendix 1.
163
4 The contents of Gr 8
Whether all these bad thoughts harass us or do not harass us is not in our
power to decide. To be assaulted is one thing, to harbor the thought in one's
mind is another, to give room to passion is still another, (and another to fight
back), assent is one thing, outright activity another.169
The text has been attributed to three different authors: John of Damascus (ca.
650–ca. 750), Athanasios of Alexandria (ca. 295–373), and Ephrem the Syr-
ian (306–373). The textual tradition which Theodoros had at hand was the
one associated with John of Damascus. However, in all three cases these
texts further explain how one can behave when faced with temptation,
whereas the text in Gr 8 cuts off in the middle of this exegesis, without ex-
plaining the last two steps (<
Ñ= and @Ò< ) and their conse-
quences. This seems a bit odd, since Theodoros actually had a few more
lines at his disposal on the page. It could, however, be that this blank space
was insufficient for copying the whole paragraph, and accordingly Theo-
doros cut off at a “good” line in the exegesis, just where we are invited to
wrestle and so resist the temptations that would lead to sin.
On virtue, there is also the prose paraphrase of Gregory of Nazianzos’
poem with the same name, On Virtue (Carm. mor. I. 2, 9), but this text, Text
55 in Gr 8, has already been discussed above. Likewise, Plethon’s treatise
On Virtues, Text 23, has been mentioned. Under the same heading one could
certainly add large portions of the gnomological texts in Gr 8, but we will
save these until later and discuss them among the practical texts.
169
Jo. Dam., De virtutibus et vitiis, PG 95, 93A (CPG 8111).
164
Philosophical and theological texts
It may seem from my treatment here that there are countless entrances
into the subjects of philosophy and theology in Gr 8. To be clear: yes, these
texts do color the overall impression of the manuscript, and prove that Theo-
doros had a genuine interest in these matters. But the texts are in themselves
so diverse in genre and style, poetic, prose, learned, simple, “modern,” (i.e.
for someone in the fifteenth century) and ancient, that we get a rich and in-
teresting picture of the field. I also hope to have shown that the texts were
not selected randomly: there are themes which recur time and again, and link
different parts and units of the manuscript together with others.
£
,
, = ¯
,
º
% · _
#<.
%
#<, ®_¯
¤ #.
¤ $Õ , \ =
.
170
Par. suppl. gr. 1135, ff. 219v–222r (mid-18th c., Kition); Vindob. suppl. gr. 190, f. 170r–v
(late 18th c.); Par. suppl. gr. 1136, f. 196r–v (before 1819); Par. suppl. gr. 1140, ff. 93–96
(after 1827); catalog entries in ASTRUC&CONCASTY 1960, 246–259 and 272–277; HUNGER ET
AL 1994, vol. 4, 331–333. All four manuscripts present Meletios Sinaites’ composition of the
hymn, and in one of them, Par. suppl. gr. 1140, there is also an alternative version by
Archbishop Germanos (both of them 17th-c. composers). A kalophonic heirmos is a hymn
which functioned as a musical accompaniment during, or in connection with, the service in
church; it could, for example, be sung during mass, when the bread was distributed. This
hymn, i.e. the short version of Text 33, is flagged as “unediert” in the Vienna catalog, but it
was apparently printed in
>"
#"> (<$ £%
®#
),
%
# 1835; reprinted by #
as facsimile sine anno. I am grateful to
Professor Hilkka Seppälä for providing me with this piece of information.
171
In Text 33, lines 3–4 read as follows (Gr 8, f. 193v): %
#<,
< |
¤ #
¯ ®_¯, ¤ $Õ. For the rest of the text, see
Appendix 1.
165
4 The contents of Gr 8
Furthermore, in the akolouthia which John Eugenikos wrote over his brother
Mark, bishop of Ephesus, there is an exaposteilarion which might echo the
first line of Text 33: its second strophe starts with the line £
,
, ¯
=\ .172 On the other hand, the thesaurus of
phrases to use would have been there for anyone to combine, as is obvious
from, e.g., Ephraem the Syrian’s collection of hymns to the Mother of
God.173
Lastly, there are some biblical and liturgical texts in Gr 8: the Decalogue
or Ten Commandments (Text 44), some psalms (Texts 76 and 80), and also
Ave Maria, Pater Noster, and Credo (Text 79).174 One would imagine the
Ten Commandments to be a text which everybody knew by heart, making it
superfluous in a manuscript. Nevertheless, it is not included as an “extra,” as
a page filler. Rather, it seems planned with as much diligence as any other
text, with spaces left for rubricated initials for every commandment, and so
forth. In the manuscript the text is followed by a list enumerating the biblical
patriarchs and Jewish, Chaldean, Persian, Syrian, Egyptian and Roman
kings/emperors. Both the psalms and the liturgical items are set bilingually;
evidently, these were intended as language practice, with the Greek words
put in above and carefully matching each Latin word. To use the Book of
Psalms as a primer was more or less standard procedure during the Middle
Ages (when it replaced Homer as the students’ first acquaintance), and thus
it also made sense to employ these well-known texts when introducing a new
language. Apropos of Texts 40–41 which deal with the problematic addition
of filioque to the creed, one may observe that the Credo in Text 79 includes
the qui ex patre filioque procedit / © @
^
> Á^
@
,
with no extra comment whatsoever. Apparently, the issue was no longer so
hot so as to incite Theodoros to make any remarks on this in his book. Per-
haps the question was of less concern precisely because the text was sup-
posed to be a mere language lesson.
Practical texts
Is it possible to distinguish how texts in a certain book were used? Or for
what intended use they could have been gathered in the first place? Perhaps
not specifically, unless there are actual traces in the form of comments, mar-
ginal notes and the like. But the textual types themselves may invite a reader
more or less patently to go about using them in a practical way. It may also
be the case that we find it hard to imagine any other function for some of the
172
The akolouthia over Mark Eugenikos has been edited by Louis Petit; for the exapo-
steilarion, see PETIT 1927, 221.
173
Ephr. Precationes ad dei matrem, ed. PHRANTZOLES 1995, 354–413.
174
Ps. 32 (= LXX, Ps. 31); Ps. 38 (= LXX, Ps. 37); Ps. 51 (= LXX, Ps. 50); Ps. 6.
166
Practical texts
texts. Can an enumeration of bishoprics ever be enjoyable to read for its own
sake? Would a description of the parts and potencies of the soul inspire any-
one to leisurely reading? I think one must conclude that a large portion of
Gr 8 consists of precisely these kinds of texts. Nevertheless, as with all cate-
gories, this also has its border cases: lists of anecdotes, proverbs, historical
tidbits would easily trigger a reader’s imagination. As soon as there is a trace
of narrativity in a text, there is also a good chance that it could have been
kept for its reading value, regardless of other aspects of usefulness. Let us
therefore start out with these micro-narratives, the chreiae and anecdotes,
and then work our way toward the more technical texts, the lists, lexica, col-
lections of arithmetic examples, procedures of fortune-telling, language ex-
ercises, and so forth.
Gnomical texts
Texts 5, 10, (88)
To this cluster I count collections of sayings, scattered maxims which often
function as page fillers, and, in addition, works which to a great extent are
built up from sayings and proverbs. The reason why I put these among the
“practical texts” is their role as treasuries; some of them may have offered
moral guidance, but most were probably quarries: if you wanted to write a
letter, give a speech or a sermon, or even appear bright in a dinner conversa-
tion, you needed these morsels of famous sayings and anecdotes, proverbs
and words of wisdom. This was true not only for ordinary readers (whoever
these were). In Byzantine literary works, in letters and speeches as well as in
the larger narratives we find it illustrated time and again: the same anec-
dotes, adages, and fine-sounding phrases recur frequently.
One rather excessive example of the use of proverbs in a literary work is
Isocrates’ speech To Demonicus (Text 5 in Gr 8). Although To Demonicus
traditionally counts as an oration, it is, as I stated above, in its form more of
a treatise or a letter. In his hortatory treatise Isocrates has collected and con-
nected admonitions and precepts which could be useful to a young man who
aimed at living a good and virtuous life. The compositional technique was
not uncommon: one finds the same “gnomic” character in works by Hesiod,
Theognis, Pindar, and Menander.175 But in the case of To Demonicus this has
become a stumbling block for its authorial attribution to Isocrates. Scholars
have criticized the treatise’s lack of style and form precisely due to its inte-
gration of many proverbial wordings.176 Among Byzantine readers (and au-
thors) this critique would have seemed inconceivable. To use well-known
175
THÜR 1998, 1112.
176
The debate around the (in)authenticity of To Demonicus is the concern of my article
“Bodybuilding for the Soul: Earnest Words are Needed. The Case of Isocrates’ Speech To
Demonicus” (forthcoming).
167
4 The contents of Gr 8
Gnomologies
Texts 35, 38, 48, (59),
Collections of sayings are often referred to as gnomologies (after the Greek
word for sentence or thought, <), or florilegia (“pickings of flowers”).
Among scholars, florilegia have been exploited mainly as sources of an oth-
erwise lost (classical) literature, but there are other ways of looking at this
kind of literature. One is to emphasize the role florilegia played in the proc-
ess of the intellectual production of their own time, i.e. to put them into an
historical-literary context. This path was taken by Marcel Richard, who was
one of the pioneers on this genre, and Paolo Odorico has worked much in the
same vein, for example in his study of John Georgides’ florilegium.178 André
Guillou considered the Sacra Parallela and similar collections as mirrors
providing indications on the organization of Byzantine society, and proposed
that they be used as a source for Byzantine histoire de mentalité.179 Even if it
is rational to count gnomical texts among the practical texts, as a form of
Gebrauchsliteratur, I still think we must allow more than one area of use for
the gnomological texts in our manuscripts: depending on their subject matter
and the preferences of the collector/reader, they could have been compiled
and copied for didactic purposes, for devotional use, as a help for the mem-
ory, as a treasury to draw from in one’s own creative work, for the sheer joy
of having pithy and memorable aphorisms to relish and share with people,
and so forth.180
177
The Alexander legend is also referred to in Tzetzes’ Chiliades; in the excerpts included in
Gr 8 one can read about Alexander’s taming of the horse Boukephalos (Chil. I, 28), and about
Alexander’s two-colored eyes and bent neck (Chil. XI, 368). Tzetzes’ Chiliades and his letter
to Lachanas were also mentioned above, among narratives and letters.
178
ODORICO 1986, 4; Cf. RICHARD 1964.
179
GUILLOU 1976, 11.
180
On the Byzantine culture of compilation, see also ODORICO 1990; LEMERLE 1971.
168
Practical texts
There are a few florilegia in Gr 8, and we have already come across one,
Text 48. This is a rather comprehensive florilegium, encompassing 19 pages
in the codex. Organized alphabetically it starts out with sayings attributed to
Alexander, Anacharsis and Aspasia and ends with the saying “þ
^
\ , ¹
%
Ò Á ×.”181 Although
organized alphabetically, it still seems to be a mix of different kinds of flori-
legia: some sayings are sorted by names, i.e. the person who supposedly said
it; some are anonymous and are sorted by incipit instead. In Text 48, we
have both principles in a blend. Within this investigation there is no place for
mapping the earlier sources or related collections in any detail. I limit myself
to a couple of observations. At present, there are about ten sayings which I
have not identified in other florilegia. Since most of these happen to stand as
the last few items per each letter in the alphabetic order, this may imply that
they are recent additions to the collection, perhaps even added by the scribe
himself. A case in point may corroborate this: the last three items under let-
ter alpha are sayings attributed to Alexander. The very same items, however,
are also part of Text 10, i.e., the Alexander sentences which Theodoros
added toward the end of U3. If one of these two instances is secondary, rely-
ing on the other, it is probably Text 48, since in Text 10 these excerpts are
given in the same order as they stand in the Alexander romance, whereas in
Text 48 the order is jumbled. Another observation that may be of interest is
the fact that a number of sayings which I have not found in other florilegia
correspond to sayings incorporated in the Life of St Cyril Phileotes.182 This
twelfth-century work by Nicholas Kataskepenos is known from three manu-
scripts only,183 and “shares many features with monastic-cum-sacro-profane
florilegia compiled by near contemporaries including John the Oxite, Paul
Evergetinos and Nikon of the Black Mountain.”184
Text 35 is another small collection of only ten sentences. One is attributed
to Maximos the Confessor, six to Demosthenes, one each to Brutus and Aris-
totle, and one is anonymous. In the first sentence, we once again meet the
soul, and its three parts—reason, will, and desire: “bridle the hot-tempered
part of the soul through love, quench the passionate part of it through self-
control, put wings on the rational part through contemplation, and the light
of your soul will never grow faint.” The rest of the sentences display the
same sentiment of virtue and common sense: “nobody can avoid death, but
good men must always try to act honorably, offer good hope, and hold that
181
This saying is rendered slightly differently in Nicholas Kataskepenos’ Life of St. Cyril
Phileotes 46. 4, where the doctors, reasonably, are said to be the saviors of the sick, not their
fathers.
182
The lack of parallels in other florilegia is just a preliminary result that a thorough investi-
gation may modify.
183
Cod. Athous Caracallou 42 (a. 1341), Cod. Marc. gr. II. 104 (16th c.), Cod. Athous Lavra
H 191 (18th c.); see further SARGOLOGOS 1964, 23–27.
184
MULLETT 2002, 144.
169
4 The contents of Gr 8
god give magnanimously”; “to join someone in what one should not and not
to join in what one should, amounts to the same thing.” Did Theodoros select
these sentences specifically or were they already part of a florilegium which
he had at hand? It is not easy to say, but one can at least say that there is no
easily detectable principle which would explain the combination of sen-
tences.185 Text 59, on the other hand, is a short but coherent gnomology,
covering the sayings which became attributed to the Seven Sages of
Greece.186
Normally, florilegia are created by the combination of many source texts,
but there are examples of one-author florilegia, and even florilegia which
limit its source material to one single work. Examples of collections based
on a single author are Menander’s “one-liners,” Monosticha, and the collec-
tion of Euripides citations. The core of the so-called Gnomologium Byzanti-
num is the sentences from three authors: Democritus, Epictetus, and Is-
ocrates. In Gr 8 there is one decidedly “monocultural” collection of excerpts
and sentences, a gnomology which has Constantine Manasses’ historical
work, the Synopsis Chronike, as its only source (Text 38). This collection of
Synopsis excerpts is not unique; there are a number of similar gnomologies
in manuscripts dated to the fourteenth through eighteenth centuries. When
Odysseus Lampsides wrote his article on some of these gnomologies,187 he
did not include Gr 8 in his survey, probably due to the poor quality of the
Uppsala manuscript catalog, where the text is itemized merely as “Farrago
sententiarum ex diversis excerptarum.”188 Constantine Manasses’ twelfth-
century chronicle is a colorful work, which presents lively stories and beauti-
ful ekphraseis in a vein not far from the contemporary Komnenian novels.
The contrast is stark between the chronicle in its entirety and the gnomology
based upon it. What the excerptor selected in this case was above all the
proverbial wordings, the moral at the end of certain episodes, and also occa-
sional ekphraseis, in all probability because of their applicability, i.e., with
the prospect of recycling them in other contexts, oral as well as textual. As I
have shown in a recent article, this was not the only mode of selection; de-
pending on personal preferences and the purpose of a certain collection, a
compiler could gather mainly descriptions, or historical episodes, or material
on the imperial family, et cetera.189 The material was rich and the choices
many. Compared to related collections, such as the one in Bodleian Misc.
285 (Auct. T 5.23, 16th c.), the Synopsis gnomology in Gr 8 is truncated: all
the excerpts derive from the first half of Manasses’ chronicle. The position
in the manuscript may be the reason for this, since the text was put in secon-
185
For the whole collection of sentences, see Appendix 1.
186
This text was mentioned among the philosophical texts, above.
187
LAMPSIDES 1985.
188
Cf. catalog entries in GRAUX 1889, 39 and TORALLAS TOVAR 1994, 234. Originally, the
expression comes from Sparwenfeld’s catalog (Catalogus centuriae 1706, 59).
189
NILSSON & NYSTRÖM 2009, 54f.
170
Practical texts
darily, filling the last three folia of U6. Nonetheless, the location of the
gnomology is not arbitrary: it goes well together with the preceding texts,
which include many passages on virtue and vice plus gnomological material.
Scattered sayings
Texts 10b, 37, 47, 54
Proverbs are regularly put in as page fillers in Gr 8, but this does not mean
that they must be secondary from a scribal perspective. Three short proverbs
or sayings finish off f. 196v (Text 37), and to judge from the ink and the
decoration they were put in at the same time as the preceding material.190
This may be compared to the subsequent text, the Synopsis gnomology,
which Theodoros apparently added at a later stage, and which lacks both its
title and rubricated initials.191 That the scribe paid special attention even to
the smallest additions in the book may be illustrated with Text 10b. Here the
two proverbial sentences are thematically related to the preceding anecdote
in Text 10a (on Alexander who saw a soldier being deloused by a woman):
“The seemly adornment for a woman is not beauty but moderation”; “Like a
golden earring in a pig’s snout, so is beauty in a heedless woman.”192 Recy-
cling of sayings may be observed even within Gr 8. The same Alexander
sentences were included twice (in Text 10 and Text 48), and likewise, two of
the sayings in Text 37 also appear elsewhere as a page filler (Text 54).
Tagged onto a text dealing with the soul, these gnomic expressions on life,
death, and philosophy here seem a perfect match. One of the two sayings,
the “memento mori epigram” °¬ =
_
Î "$´, is also
attested as an inscriptional epigram: it is found on a marble slab now im-
mured in the exterior wall of the monastery of Xeropotamos (Mount Athos),
and the same line is also known to have been inscribed in Palaiologan times
on the Xyloporta in Constantinople.193 Text 47 is another micro-text, this
time put as a page filler after a long strophic poem with solemn contents, the
so-called Carmen paraeneticum (see above, p. 136).
190
F. 196v, the last three lines: _ < ¤
_^ Á }\. °¬
=
_
Î "$´. Ì }#}$¨ #\
=
.
191
A reader has added what looks like a title in the upper margin of f. 197r, but it turns out to
relate only to one of the excerpts on the next page (“The Trojan war, how Achilles died”).
192
£\% <
> ##, ##’ %} (Lib. Decl. 6. 2, 35); ÿ
@
_^ @ º Ê, ¹
% } < ## (Prov. 11:22).
193
Marc Lauxtermann suggests that the marble slab at Xeropotamos originally came from a
monastic graveyard, either in Constantinople or elsewhere. Cf. LAUXTERMANN 2003, 243 and
350f.
171
4 The contents of Gr 8
Lists
Texts 22, 45, 62, 63, 65
From the catalog of ships in Book Two of the Iliad to the endless enumera-
tion of persons and professionals in Whitman’s poem Song of Myself, litera-
ture is full of them, the lists, the enumeration of things, persons, offices,
rulers, and what not. So why not in the miscellanies, a book form especially
suited for minor works. “And of these one and all I weave the song of my-
self,” says Walt Whitman, and a parallel may effortlessly be drawn with the
miscellanies, so full of seemingly adversative texts. Among the lists in Gr 8
are one of the seven wonders (Text 22), one on ancient inventors (Text 63),
and so-called Notitia episcopatuum, i.e., lists of all the patriarchates, metro-
polises, and sees in the Byzantine Church (Text 62).194
Text 45 is a long list of all the biblical patriarchs and Old Testament
kings, kings from Jewish, Chaldaean, Persian, and Assyrian dynasties, and
also the Roman kings/emperors from Julius Caesar, @}
>
°\Ç °<, to Constantius, father of Constantine the Great,
, ~
^ <# %
$
¬. This long list may also count
as a short chronicle, since it presents some extras: small pieces of informa-
tion on certain rulers and, in addition, several chronological notes on how
many years had passed from Adam until this or that dynasty came into
power. The enumeration ends with the phrase “from this time on, the emper-
ors of the Christians,” @
^= Á
²
"# . It is not fully
clear whether this was meant as a heading to yet another paragraph, or if
Theodoros simply chose to end on this note. Since there is room for another
six lines or so on the page, perhaps the second suggestion is the more prob-
able.
In Text 65 we meet the Palaiologan emperors and the Ottoman sultans.
This list was later amplified through a reader’s marginal notes: another three
sultans and their respective conquests bring us all the way up to the battle of
Mohács in 1526.195 The original list of sultans ends with Mehmet II, who
ruled from 1451 and conquered Constantinople two years later.196 The fact
that there is no mention of his successor is worthy of note, considering
that—based on the watermarks—we have an approximative date for large
parts of Gr 8 to around 1481. Mehmet died in May 1481 and was succeeded
by his son Bayezid II later that year. Although there are no guarantees that
lists like these would always be updated by a scribe, the situation is at least
194
On the topos of first inventor,
Ê
¬, in encomia and other rhetorical texts, cf.
THRAEDE 1962, 1202. On the list of bishoprics in Gr 8, see DARROUZÈS 1981, 443.
195
See also Appendix 1. Similar examples may be found in Peter Schreiner’s collection of
“Chroniken Türkischer Eroberungen;” see, for example, Chronik 65–68 (SCHREINER 1975, I,
498–525).
196
The date in the manuscript is Anno Mundi 6959, indiction 14. Mehmet had two periods of
rule, first from 1444–46 and then from 1451.
172
Practical texts
Lexica
Texts 12, 50, 61, (76, 79–81)
This is another group of texts obviously included for their practical applica-
bility, whether one’s own interests were decisive or one needed the linguistic
and factual information for teaching purposes. Text 12 is a botanical lexicon,
which gives synonyms or explanations to herbs, roots, and all sorts of other
things which were used as pharmaceutical ingredients or remedies.197 Even
though most items in the lexicon are botanical species, there is certainly a
generous attitude to what fits in an enumeration like this: beer, glue, and
occipital bones are found scattered among freshwater turtles, moles, and seal
feces. The feeling is that one would rather not know what components were
in the drug one just ate. A similar lexicon was edited by Armand Delatte,
from Parisinus graecus 2318 (15th century), but some of the lemmata have
more exhaustive explanations in Gr 8.198 Another manuscript, which contains
a botanical lexicon closely related to the text in Gr 8, is Marcianus graecus
292. This codex is of Cretan origin, most of it copied in 1306 by Michael
Lulludes. Here, just as in Gr 8, the botanical lexicon follows upon Paul of
Aegina’s Medical compendium.199
Text 50 is a lexicon of synonyms, which seems to have advanced literary
vocabulary as its focus, words which one would encounter when reading the
Septuagint, Homer, and ancient tragedy, for example. Both this and the bo-
tanical lexicon are organized alphabetically, i.e., from alpha to omega ac-
cording merely to the first letter of each word but not the rest. A comparison
of Text 50 with edited lexica of a similar kind seems to suggest that many
entries come close to the readings in Pseudo-Zonaras’ lexicon. But there are
lemmata included that would rather point in other directions, to an affinity
with the lexical corpus of Hesychios, the Suda, Lexicon Segueriana, et al.
None of these seems to offer a clear-cut model for Text 50.
Yet another lexicon gives evidence of linguistic interests. The subject
matter of Text 61 is glosses from all kinds of Greek dialects, including Ro-
man loanwords: <> <#
# ,
#^
<#%¬
, “words such as there are in each city (such as are called
glossems).”200
One unit of Gr 8, U15, exemplifies linguistic practice by the widespread
method of “take a text that you know well, preferably by heart, add a transla-
197
Inc.
\¨ }#\, expl. ¨
> "#. See also Appendix 1.
198
DELATTE 1939, 372–377.
199
TURYN 1972, I, 105; the botanical lexicon is a later addition to the manuscript and not in
Lulludes’ hand. On Michael Lulludes, see also TURYN 1973.
200
Inc. |=%. ·<¨ #$. Ã#¨ . #¨ Á
.
173
4 The contents of Gr 8
tion of it word for word, and you have a language lesson.” The texts selected
for this purpose are, not unexpectedly, drawn mainly from the Psalter (Text
76 and 80) and the liturgy (Text 79). A letter formulary, examples of how to
address different people, is also included among the bilingual—Latin and
Greek—items in U15 (Text 81).201
Medical texts
Texts 11, (12), 13, 14, 15, (29)
The medical texts in Gr 8, among which the medico-botanical lexicon must
be counted, is a clearly demarcated genre in the book. Just about all the
medical material is gathered in a codicological unit of its own, U4. The only
medical subject matter located elsewhere in the manuscript, in U6, is a text
which I mentioned among the theological texts; it is also treated more thor-
oughly in the next chapter: Text 29 (inc.
¤ $). That text is
indeed concerned with medical questions, but the “scientific” medical expla-
nations are combined with a theological and moral message in a vein unre-
lated to the more strictly medical texts discussed here.
The medical material in U4 comprises five texts, or possibly six, if we
consider the fact that the first and longest text, by Paul of Aegina (Text 11),
also incorporates a fictitious letter from Diocles of Karystos to the Macedo-
nian King Antigonus.202 This letter, which is an exposé “on illness, whence it
comes, which the signs are and how one should approach it,” is transmitted
as the last chapter of Book One in Paul of Aegina’s Medical Compendium.
But one may also come across it transmitted independently.203 Although, in
Gr 8, the letter obviously belongs to the tradition of Paul’s works, following
as it does upon chapters 73–99 of the same book, it is clear from the layout
of the manuscript that our scribe, Theodoros, considered it a separate text
(cf. p. 82). Chapters 73–99 offer a survey on foodstuff and nutritional mat-
ters as well as some advice on sleep and insomnia.
Text 12, the medico-botanical lexicon, has already been mentioned above.
Following upon the lexicon are two texts possibly chosen from a personal
201
The psalms and liturgical texts were mentioned above, among the devotional texts. For the
formulary, see Chapter 5.
202
Paul of Aegina was a physician and surgeon in 7th-c. Alexandria, whose encyclopaedic
work deeply influenced Arab medical teachings, and thereby in turn Western medieval medi-
cine. The fictional character of Diocles’ letter has been confirmed by Felix Heinimann, not
only due to the chronological difficulty in combining the activity of the Attic physician Dio-
cles (fl. 340–320 BCE) with a king by the name of Antigonus, but even more cogently be-
cause of the contents: the dietary and non-pharmaceutical inclination of the teachings is such
that it can hardly have been composed earlier than the 1st c. BCE (HEINIMANN 1955, 166).
Arnaldo Momigliano, on the other hand, wanted to ascribe the letter to Aristogenes (3rd c.
BCE), court physician to Antigonus Gonatas (Suda, 3910 and 3911, s.v. |
<\;
MOMIGLIANO 1933, 132–135).
203
Cf. DIELS 1906, 27f. and 77f.
174
Practical texts
Mathematical problems
Texts 83, 84, 86
The penultimate quire in Gr 8 contains a number of mathematical problems.
I refer to these as two texts, Texts 84 and 86, since they present different
methods of problem-solving and are separated by almost three blank pages
in the middle of the quire (space which was later used for notes and scrib-
bles, Text 85).207 It is quite possible, however, that they were copied from
one and the same model text. The blank spaces may indicate that Theodoros
had planned to insert further examples later on. The first section (Text 84)
presents algebra with the help of examples from daily life. The second (Text
86) deals with fractions and the addition, multiplication, and division of the
same.208 Part of a mathematical problem (Text 83) was also added by a later
reader (see p. 107).
204
The formula comes from Aëtios of Amida (Aët. XV, 15, 693–704). For the notice on
contraceptives, see Appendix 1.
205
Philo, De opificio mundi 105.
206
Cf. Ilias Pontikos’ discussion of the medical excerpts from Alexander of Aphrodisias
included in Cod. Barocc. 133 (13th c.): “a collection of natural questions of no great philoso-
phical or medical value, reminiscent of the table-talk genre of writing which derived from the
Late Roman period and was still popular among the Byzantines of that time” (PONTIKOS 1992,
xxxvii).
207
For the notes which make up Text 85, see p. 106.
208
Cf. SEARBY 2003b.
175
4 The contents of Gr 8
Astrology/divination
Text 66
In Gr 8 one also finds a practical manual on geomancy, or sand divination.
Theodoros apparently had far-reaching interests into different things. It is
fascinating that this cultural expression is put side by side with pious texts (a
prayer to the Virgin, spiritual guidance, doctrinal discussion, eschatology,
etc.). Text 66 includes a zodiac, basic astrological lore, and a brief introduc-
tion to the art of ramplion, divination with the help of a random number of
marks struck in the sand. One of the studies in Chapter 5 is dedicated to Text
66.
An idiosyncratic selection
The delimitation of the group “practical texts” has been made on the basis of
subject matter and the assumed function. In some cases the subject matter
tends toward the range of subjects included in Byzantine education, though
we have no hint that the volume ever functioned as a school book or teach-
ing compendium per se.209 Just as in Western Europe, Byzantine instruction
included rhetoric, grammar, and logic (trivium), arithmetics, geometry, as-
tronomy, and music (quadrivium).210 Not all of these subjects are represented
in Gr 8, and the texts in the volume are not really typical school texts. Theo-
doros’ selection of texts seems more idiosyncratic than that. Was it governed
by personal interests or professional motives? With an educated scribe it is
not always possible to draw the line between these incentives.
209
The connection between miscellaneous books and schooling has been suggested in other
studies, for example by Robert Black (BLACK 2003). This connection, however, is not self-
evident and must be determined discriminately, from case to case.
210
On Byzantine education during the last centuries of the Empire, see MERGIALI-FALANGA
1996 and MARKOPOULOS 2008, with further references.
176
Minding the gaps, bridging the differences
the contents. To argue that one may find coherence in a volume with 90
texts, when they belong to so many different genres and centuries is not un-
complicated. Fiction, letters, medical texts, botany, mathematics, astrology,
philosophy, theological queries, sermons, prayers, poems, speeches, chroni-
cle material, sayings, lists and lexica: is there really a logic to all this? Per-
haps not overtly; at least it would have been difficult to maintain this had the
book been a composite created from units of various origin. But the unifier
here is above all Theodoros himself. This was his book, his selection of
texts, and that is why we need to bring in the perspective of use, even if that
is a somewhat elusive category.
I argue that Gr 8 was Theodoros’ own book. It is his scribal creation, by
all means, and the arrangement of the codicological units seems conscien-
tious enough to let us assume that the book did not come about through a
“cleaning of desk drawers.” In any case the one who put the texts together
knew what he was doing, and had full comprehension of which units and
texts to combine: starting with Stephanites and Ichnelates (U2), next picking
up the theme of prince’s mirror in Isocrates’ speech followed by further nar-
rative texts (U3); having Plethon’s and Mark Eugenikos’ texts on the filioque
controversy (U7) follow upon the units which hold other humanist texts, by
Leonardo Bruni, Bessarion, Nicholas Sagundino as well as Plethon and
Eugenikos themselves (U5–U6); and so forth. The addition of all the micro-
texts in connection to—and often in style with—the larger texts also points
to Gr 8 being a personal book, and not something Theodoros intended to
sell. All that extra work would not have paid off in a vending situation.
In the present chapter the texts from Gr 8 were collected and connected
into four categories. This gave us the chance of a bird’s-eye view of the con-
tents. The point of departure for the categorizing was the function that we
may assume for these texts. At this stage we might even bring these catego-
ries down to three objectives that may have guided Theodoros in his compil-
ing of texts: 1) “things I like to read” 2) “things I’m interested in” 3) “things
that might be useful for me.”211 In many cases these three reasons for includ-
ing texts may have interacted. The category of narrative texts, for example,
would mainly go together with objective 1, but that does not exclude the
possibility that some of those texts could have been of more practical use as
well. The category of philosophical and theological texts would match with
objective 2, but the intellectual (or devotional) side of these matters was just
one possible reason for their inclusion; there may have been others. The
rhetorical texts and the practical manuals are apparently bent on usefulness,
objective 3, but there are letters, poems, and declamations which may just as
well have been included for the pleasure of reading or for their subject mat-
ter. The same goes for some of the practical texts, which could well have
211
The third objective could include both private and professional applications.
177
4 The contents of Gr 8
212
This statement is valid for the codex as a whole. Individual units (perhaps U3–6 and defi-
nitely U17) may originally have been prepared for vending although for some reason they
were instead set aside.
178
Minding the gaps, bridging the differences
179
TAKING A CLOSER LOOK
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
1
In addition to the three texts included in this chapter, I have given yet another one a closer
analysis, but the results were published as a separate article: Text 38, a collection of excerpts
drawn from Constantine Manasses’ Synopsis Chronike, was added by Theodoros at the end of
U6 (on pages which he initially had left blank). This gnomology, its relation to the whole
chronicle as well as to similar “Synopsis gnomologies,” was explored with the focus put on
how Byzantine texts were composed, read, used, and transmitted. The presentation was co-
authored with Ingela Nilsson (NILSSON & NYSTRÖM 2009).
2
µ<
^ <# ²
¢% < (printed,
with a different title, In decollationem praecursoris et baptistae Ioannis, et in Herodiadem,
PG 59, 485–490; CPG 4001 and 4570). The attribution of this sermon to Chrysostom is con-
sidered spurious (cf. MERCATI 1921, 231 and ALDAMA 1965, 138f.), but it is transmitted under
his name both in Anastasios of Sinai’s Quaestiones and in the Sacra Parallela.
3
Cf. CHAPMAN 1929, 73. According to Johannes Quasten some 300 spurious works are
printed and another 600 works falsely attributed to Chrysostom still remain inedited (QUAS-
TEN 1960, 470).
184
Due to the lack of self control: Text 29
we must acknowledge that for the scribe of Gr 8, Theodoros, these two texts
did pass as Chrysostom’s works, thus carrying the weight of authoritative
statements.4
The context in this part of the manuscript (U6) is made up of a fair num-
ber of near contemporary works, written in the intellectual milieu of Mistra
and Italy in the mid-fifteenth century: by Plethon the treatise On virtues and
the opening paragraphs of his reply to George Scholarios on Aristotle’s phi-
losophy; letters by Bessarion (to the sons of Plethon, to Michael Apostoles,
to Andronikos Kallistos) and by Nicholas Sagundino (also to Andronikos
Kallistos); and theological notes by Mark Eugenikos. In immediate vicinity
to Text 29 we find two other texts explicitly derogatory of women. he pre-
ceding Chrysostom sermon (Text 28) is biased in an interesting way:
whereas in the primary version (CPG 4570) the enumeration of wicked
women is followed by their good and virtuous counterparts, our scribe, or his
model manuscript, excluded the end part of the sermon, thus emphasizing
female vileness only. Text 27, Libanios’ Declamation 26 “On the morose
and his wife,” is a text less venomous but still directed at giving a disagree-
able picture of women. After Text 29 follows an assortment of short texts
with moral or theological content (Mark Eugenikos on the end of life and on
eternal punishment, John of Damascus on the eight capital sins, letters by
Isidore of Pelousion, and a few anonymous texts).
Text 29 will be explored here with focus on the contents and ideas pre-
sented in the text. How do these fit in with earlier and contemporary views
on the subject? Is there a Byzantine tradition behind the ideas, or do we need
to look elsewhere to find the cultural trail eventually leading to the text we
now read in Gr 8? What does the manuscript context tell us; do the sur-
rounding texts give any clues on how to read Text 29? From the limited
scope of the text we may assume that the manuscript only transmits an ex-
cerpt or notes based on an originally longer text. The language of the text is
problematic in some places, whether because of textual corruption or be-
cause it is some kind of shorthand notes, not even meant to be complete is
difficult to know. Nevertheless, even though there are minor points in the
edition which are solved only tentatively, I do not find this an impediment
for the overall comprehension of the text. So as not to interfere too much
with the original, I have made only slight adjustments to the text, accounted
for in the apparatus, and will instead discuss the difficulties in connection
with the translation.
4
Text 29 is mentioned in CPG as “Sermo anepigraphus” (No. 4878), and is also included in
Robert Carter’s enumeration of Chrysostom codices (CARTER 1970, No. 33). It has not en-
tered José Antonio de Aldama’s inventory of pseudo-Chrysostomian works.
185
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
1
^
^¨
¤ $
}#
% <<\%
_´ # $
, @¬
#
#\. #\<% ¤ # ·#
@# }
$, (190r) # }$,
5 <<< }<\.
^
+
@ Î $´ @\_
##"\
< $%. ¡
< \ ·} Á
¯. ¡
Õ ÷ \ø ~ <<
^
¨ ø ¼ ’
##" @
¡
¯ }\
> <
>
_
¯ ##¬® %. < @
>
\
10 % \
^ \ @
¯ }\. @ + @ _³
< $% ##"
> , @ _³
>
_=\
@¬
, +
Õ ø,
\
@\_
, +
\ø
\ø ý
$
Õ,
> ®¯}
<>
Ú
@
$
Î
_=\
. @ +
³ ¡"Õ
¯ }\ #_ \
15 ##",
Î
\´, ³, @
Î
\#
¯ %¯
¾<¬
\
#
Î . $ø < <<
(190v)
}\
> @
#
"##. = #^
· *
$ <\%
\_ @
\.
$ \; °%¯
^
@
$´ } ;
20 ¾} $#
> #> @
=Î =>
>
, ¤
³ #$Õ @^ Ú _ <$ =
Î ""´;
¹
% + ~
}#> $#
³ =$ø; <Õ + ## >
^ @¬=, > ³ >
^
\# Ë @##¤ @< ¬=.
> <
¤ "
^
\#
Û
@<_
¨
+ < ·##
25 \# #
<
> ¾
%
Î
}<< . Á + Ú
Ê> =\ _
% @
$=
> ¤
}=¯
ý "#"¯ >
¯ · =
¨
^
_ Ù
Á <
^.
1
^
^ scil.
^ ²
4 #¬#
U 9 \ U 12 +
Õ] +
U +
\ø] +
\ U 14 @] @ U #_ \/ U 18 *
$ U 25
>] > U 28 < U
186
Due to the lack of self control: Text 29
Translation
5
Elephantiasis is usually taken as the Greek term for the disease nowadays named “leprosy.”
In Arabic there was also a disease with the corresponding name (d’ al-fl), but it signified
quite another illness—modern lymphatic filariasis. Here it is, by all accounts, the former
disease which is aimed at, i.e. leprosy. Nevertheless, I have decided to keep the original word,
especially since the next disease mentioned in the text ( # }$) means leprosy as well. On
these diseases, see further below.
6
The verb ##"%, is here understood as “conceive,” with menstrual fluid being the
matter out of which the fetus is created. Another option would be to read the phrase as “those
who come into contact with the menses.”
7
Literally “on each of these days.” The Greek clause lacks an active verb, here added in
brackets in the translation.
8
Cf., e.g., Ex. 20:5 and Deut. 5:9.
9
The term
¬ is rare in the Septuagint and in no instance is it associated with Moses
(it is found only in Daniel, Judith and Tobit). On its use in patristic writings, see HAMILTON
1977.
187
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
heat, they are put in last of all, so as not to perish altogether or become dam-
aged by the extreme heat. Therefore his parents did not sin.10
———
The message of Text 29 is that intercourse with a woman during her men-
struation may result in severe diseases, generated in the fetus but manifested
later in life depending on when in the woman’s period the conception took
place. This is supposed to be concordant with the Old Testament notion of
“inherited sin,” of God punishing the next generation for the parents’ trans-
gressions. The moral instruction, which is at the heart of the text, is com-
bined with medical explanations, the key concept being $, which
according to Liddell and Scott’s lexicon means either (A) bad mixture, or
(B) incontinence, lack of self control. “Bad mixture” captures the meaning of
shared bodily fluids, and is a term used in Hippocratic medicine. But the
wording “
¤ $” is also reminiscent of 1 Cor. 7:5, ¤
ÑÕ Ê ~
¤ Ó Ê (so that Satan will not
tempt you because of your lack of self control), a passage which deals with
proper sexual conduct and whether one should marry or abstain from sexual
intercourse altogether. This Pauline passage was commented on in numerous
patristic writings, and ought therefore to have rung a bell for many people,
whether through their own readings and education or just by their going to
church and being immersed in Christian vocabulary from their early years.
The last paragraph of Text 29 opens up an alternative etiology for disable-
ment. John 9:1–12 relates how Jesus caught sight of a man who had been
blind from birth and the disciples asked him who was to blame for the im-
pairment:
Ó Ù
,
ý Á <
^,
}#> < =³. His
answer was that neither he nor his parents had sinned; rather, it happened “so
that the work of God might be displayed in his life.” In Text 29 this is ex-
panded on in an unusual way. The text refers to “charity” or “love”—
<—and premature birth as reasons for his blindness and gives an em-
bryological sketch on why this affected his eyes. Whose love or charity is at
issue here, God’s or the parents’? Text 29 gives no hint on how to compre-
hend this.
The combination of religious and medical discourse in Text 29 motivates
an approach from different angles. We will thus examine both the Jew-
ish/Christian views on purity and the ancient medical lore which has left an
imprint in our treatise. I maintain that it was precisely the combination of
these two systems of thought which facilitated a long-lasting belief in the
detrimental effects of menstrual sex.
10
Cf. John 9:1–3.
188
Due to the lack of self control: Text 29
Menstrual impurity
The taboo around menstruation is often said to be world-wide.11 It was pre-
sent also in ancient Greece to some extent, though most writers exhibit a
moderate outlook, some even considering menstruation in a woman healthy
and positive—we will come back to this below, in the discussion on medical
views.12 The text which has had the greatest impact on Byzantine and west-
ern medieval attitudes to menstruation is Leviticus, where the religiously
based taboo is an exhortation to the Israeli people to stay ritually pure when
performing cultic ceremonies. The purity laws in Leviticus marked out the
restrictions for a person who was approaching the holy sphere and covered
many different areas: food, clothing, animals, sexual relations, life and death.
Leviticus chapter 15 is about bodily discharges which cause uncleanness. It
is noteworthy that the first eighteen verses actually treat male bodily dis-
charge, whereas the next twelve verses are about the female equivalent. The
regulations and the appropriate sacrifice for cleansing are very much the
same for both sexes, and yet, throughout the centuries the curse has been on
Eve to an extent that Adam never had to undergo: it was evidently conven-
ient to use biblical support to continually circumscribe the freedom of
women. The prohibition against menstrual intercourse is not only about
ceremonial cleanness, whether women have access to the tabernacle/temple
or not, but seems to be more of a general ban. It is mentioned in Leviticus
18:19 and 20:18, as well as in Ezekiel 18:6. Jewish purity laws as we meet
them in the Torah do not stand alone: there is a history behind them too.
Codified in post-exilic times they are reminiscent of Mesopotamian practice,
and the Zoroastrian taboo on the menstruant was as severe, menstrual sex
being considered a capital offense.13 The same overall picture is present in
Hindu law as well, and, given the cultural interchange between the peoples
of the Mediterranean and the Middle East regions, it would be unexpected if
11
“Menstrual taboos may not be universal, but they are sufficiently widespread to justify the
inference that they are an extremely ancient component of the human cultural configuration”
(KNIGHT 1991, 375).
12
Hesiod states that a man must not wash himself in water previously used by a woman (OD
753–755), but he is not explicit as to whether uncleanness (and possibly banefulness) applies
to women as such or, specifically, to women as menstruating creatures. Later writers, though,
had no qualms about how this was to be interpreted: Averr. 3. Collec. cap. 7. dicebat, coitum
cum menstruata lepram inducere, atque hoc se experientia cognovisse, ut non solum à legisla-
toribus prohibitus sit huiusmodi concubitus, sed etiam ab Hesiodo vetitus, ne in balneis ver-
setur quis, ubi lavatae sunt mulieres menstruatae (Hieronymus Mercurialis, De morbis mulie-
bribus, IV. I, in SPACHIUS 1597, 257). On ancient Greek views, see also KING 2002.
13
See PHIPPS 1980, 299. In ancient and medieval times, if a Zoroastrian man knowingly had
sex with a menstruant he was to be punished with up to ninety lashes (according to Vidvd t
16: 13–16), although, as Jamsheed Choksy states, this severe penalty could also be trans-
formed into a fine (CHOKSY 1989, 92). Choksy emphasizes the menstruant’s ritual impurity as
sufficient reason for the Zoroastrian prohibition of menstrual intercourse and does not men-
tion any Zoroastrian belief reminiscent of our text’s subject matter, i.e. the possibility of
damage to a fetus created during the menses.
189
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
the attitudes to women and the restrictions around them had not been af-
fected by adjacent beliefs during the centuries.14
For Christian theologians the purity laws from the Old Testament have
been difficult to handle. How are they to be harmonized with New Testa-
ment teachings, what elements should be kept unchanged, and what could be
cast aside? The dietary laws of Acts 15:29, for example, were observed in
the Greek and oriental Church up to and including the fifth century, but have
since then had little impact in Christian teachings.15 The precepts on correct
sexual conduct have persisted more or less unchanged up until today.16 As
for chapters 13–14 in Leviticus, which deal with skin diseases and mildew,
only one part lingered on: the ban on leprosy. In Josephus’ description of the
temple area in Jerusalem, we meet with an early juxtaposition—but not
causal connection—of leprosy and menstruation.17 Except for one or two
voices, the patristic tradition has unanimously commended the exclusion of
menstruants from mass and declared menstrual sex abominable.
A text which is often put forward as radical in its stance on menstruation
is the Syriac work Didascalia (mid-third century).18 In chapter 26 of this
text, the author does away with Jewish purity laws and claims that they are
no longer necessary for Christians. The context is clear, and the Syriac word-
ing “And when (your wives have) those issues which are according to na-
ture, take care, as is right, that you cleave to them,” follows logically upon
what is said in the rest of the chapter.19 The early Latin version, on the other
hand, “cum naturalia profluunt uxoribus vestris, nolite convenire illis,” i.e.
14
According to Hindu regulations of sacred and civil conduct (dharma), codified in The Laws
of Manu around 200 BCE – 100 CE, the husband may approach his wife in “due season,”
avoiding “six forbidden nights and eight others” each month (III, 45–50). The Brahmana must
“not approach his wife when her courses appear, nor let him sleep with her in the same bed.
For the wisdom, the energy, the strength, the sight, and the vitality of a man who approaches a
woman covered with menstrual excretions, utterly perish. If he avoids her, while she is in that
condition, his wisdom, energy, strength, sight, and vitality will increase” (IV, 40–42). The
Zoroastrian purificatory use of bull’s urine in connection with menstruation may be compared
to The Laws of Manu V, 120–121. Cf. also XI, 174 and 213, where the urine of cows is men-
tioned as a remedy of purification for the man who has had intercourse with a menstruating
woman.
15
See TOMSON 1999, 75. Even though both Origen and Chrysostom stress the importance of
purifying your heart, the discussion in itself bears witness to subsisting observation of purity
commandments among Christians. Peter Tomson also refers to explicitly Christian purity
rules as they stand in, e.g., the Apostolic Constitutions 8.32: £
> ý
¤ %=
Ñ
@ ¹ >
^ < @
#Ò ®Ñ _Ò=% (every believing
man or woman must, when they wake up at dawn, wash their hands and pray before they
accomplish any work).
16
This applies to Islamic tradition as well; cf. Qur’an 2:222, 223.
17
Josephus, BJ 5, 227: <Ó + ¤ # ×# ©#,
> ’ Á > <
@ò Ò#
(those who had gonorrhea and leprosy were excluded from the city
entirely, and women, during their menstruation, were shut out of the temple).
18
See, for example, FONROBERT 2000, 166–188; COHEN 1991.
19
VÖÖBUS 1979, Syriac version p. 262; English translation p. 244. I would like to express my
gratitude to Dr. Mats Eskhult for helping me with the Syriac text.
190
Due to the lack of self control: Text 29
“do not cleave to them,” does not fit with the rest of the arguments in chapter
26. Thus, on hermeneutical, intratextual grounds, the Latin negation ought to
give rise to suspicion. Nonetheless, the editor Arthur Vööbus states that
something must be wrong with the text in Syriac: “a deliberate change can-
not come into account here,” he argues.20 On the contrary, it would be all but
unlikely if on some occasion a negation crept into the Latin text, considering
the fervent anti-menstrual tradition in Latin texts, from Pliny, over the early
Church Fathers, and onward.
The Leviticus decrees were originally promulgated as cultic observances,
related to the temple and the priesthood of Judaism. In the course of time,
however, they became reinterpreted as part of a social and moral code,
something which has often been associated with the rise of Christendom. But
the moralizing approach is found also in rabbinic writings, and mirrors the
changes in Israel’s socio-historical situation at the time of the destruction of
the Temple in 70 CE.21 Thus, leprosy became connected with pride and arro-
gance.22 For the sake of their impiety, Diodorus Siculus says, the Israelites
were expelled from Egypt, cursed as they were and afflicted with scurvy and
leprosy.23 In the same way, moral corruption is what the early church fathers
imply when they declare leprosy to be an “emblem of sin.”24 However, be-
fore we delve into the patristic tradition and its continuation in Byzantine
and Western medieval texts, we need to consider the medical side of the
problem.
20
VÖÖBUS 1979, 244, n. 229.
21
BEENTJES 2000, 72. Jonathan Klawans argues that the moral aspect is present already in
Leviticus, and that there is a clear difference in the judgement of menstruation in itself—not
referred to as an “abomination” and easily cleansed—and in impurity contracted by the per-
formance of sin, e.g. menstrual sex, which leads to dire and permanent consequences (KLA-
WANS 2000, vi).
22
See Pancratius Beentjes’ discussion of 2 Chr 26:20 (BEENTJES 2000, 71). Cf. Josephus, AJ
IX, 222–227.
23
D.S., Bibliotheca historica (ed. Walton), Fragmenta librorum 34/35. 2:
< #} ý
#Ò _
@
å =^ _Ñ Ú @< ==Ò
Ê Ó
@" "#¯=.
24
Ps.-Justin Martyr, Fragment 2 (ed. Otto):
Ò% [prob. error for \]
#Ò Ê×=
^ =^, ## }Ò % *
, =³
#Ò "#¤
¯ *
Ó
=× "#¤
^ Ò##
=Ô = Ê+
*
(therefore the material for purification was not prescribed for leprosy, but for ac-
quittance of sins, in order that leprosy might be apprehended as an emblem of sin and the
things sacrified an emblem of Him who was to be sacrified for sins).
191
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
ful and will result in illness if balance is not restored.25 Menstruation as such
was not necessarily seen as negative. In the Hippocratic tradition menstrua-
tion was a sign of health in a woman, a stance maintained also by subsequent
medical writers, like Galen and Paul of Aegina.26 Its purpose was to purge
women from superfluous humors: while men could remove the impurities
from their blood by sweating, women, whom they imagined being colder and
less active, could only do so by menstruating. A variant of this was to view
menstruation as the shedding of a plethora: women concocted more blood
from their digestion of food than they could use up. This excess might be
used to nourish a fetus, or might be converted into milk for the baby. When
not pregnant or breast-feeding, the plethora in women’s bodies had to be
expelled, as menstruations.
The embryological teachings of Aristotle, Galen, and others, maintain that
the embryo is created from a mixture of semen and menstrual blood.27 Ac-
cording to Galen, who owes much of his theoretical background to Hippo-
cratic medicine, both man and woman contribute seed.28 Aristotle, on the
other hand, claims that the male semen only supplies the energizing principle
or “form” to the embryo while the menstrual blood is the sole matter from
which it is created (GA, 766b). As male seminal fluid was thought to be
foam, made out of water and the active principle, pneuma, and the female
counterpart was the menstrual blood, the mixing of body fluids would be
inevitable in procreation. The fluids of the body are, according to Aristotle’s
theory, generative of each other—food becomes blood, and blood may in
turn become menstrual fluid, milk, or semen, as well as marrow or fat.29
Hence it is difficult to understand why menstrual blood came to be singled
out as particularly despicable. There is one passage in The generation of
animals which seems to link Aristotle with the subsequent tradition to stig-
matize the menstruant, especially in connection with abnormal births:
192
Due to the lack of self control: Text 29
then, we must attribute the cause to the semen of the male, this will be the
way we shall have to state it, but we must rather by all means suppose that
the cause lies in the material and in the embryo as it is forming.30 (my italics)
× […]. +
÷
Ñ=
¤ >
^ · <ò,
^
>
× #
Ò· ©#% +
##
¤
Ó
Ò @
³ ¹#Õ
Ò ò ¿. Direct references
to Democritus’ theory are rare: an echo of this Aristotelian passage may lie behind Marcanto-
nio Zimara’s discussion in his commentary on Aristotle’s Problemata: Warumb entpfangen
die gemeine weiber nicht / als nemlich die huren? Antwort. Es geschicht vonn wegen der
mancherley Samen / dadurch derselbigen Geburth zeug verderbet wirdt / unnd werden
schlupffericht gemacht / also dass kein natürlicher same / bey ihnen behalten wirdt / oder
kompt auch darumm / dieweil ein same den andern verderbet / daß keiner zu der geburt
tauge. Daher gesagt wird Versus: Impedit et semen aliud simul, et mediante Quo impetito
sequitur destructio prolis. Ein same den andern vertreiben thut / Dardurch verdirbt die
fruchte gut (ZIMARA 1571, f. LVIII). I had access only to the German translation; the Latin
original was written in Padua before 1514. On Marcantonio Zimara (1475–1532), famous for
his commentaries to Aristotle and Averroes, see LOHR 1982, 245–254.
31
He even calls her a monstrosity in kind, before proceeding to further malformed creatures
(GA, 767b: < ~ ¤ @Ë
< ^ Ä
×
Ò @
Ó· "Ò" <
}Ô @
Ô
@
^ <Ò
×
Ñ. _¤ + å
> =¯# <Ó< = ¤
· ).
32
Arist. HA, 582a–b: ¢ +
< Ó% ~¤ <Ó
}=Ó
¯· × }Ó
}Ò%
¤ #ò ¿ =¯#, ©
à "Ó
+ Ñ=
³
’ }=Ó,
¤ Ñ=
¤ }=Ó #ò% }. Cf. also DEAN-JONES
1989, 187–190. On astrology and medicine, see BARTON 1994, 185–191.
193
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
non vitales partus eduntur aut saniosi, 15:66). This passage may easily ac-
count for a complicated pregnancy perhaps ending in miscarriage; Pliny’s
wording does not indicate menstrual sex but has to do with abnormal bleed-
ing during pregnancy. Yet, the interpretations of later commentators and
readers went in another direction, and in this they could in fact rely on
Pliny’s authority as well:
33
Plin. HN, XXVIII, 23: ex ipsis vero mensibus, monstrificis alias, ut suo loco indicavimus,
dira et infanda vaticinantur, e quibus dixisse non pudeat, si in defectus lunae solisve congruat
vis illa, inremediabilem fieri, non segnius et in silente luna, coitusque tum maribus exitiales
esse atque pestiferos…
34
PARÉ 1971, 152, n. 15. The same outlook is found in Summula Raymundi, a work based on
the writings of 13th c. Dominican friar and canonist Raymond of Peñafort, the codifyer of
Pope Gregory IX’s canon law (CRAWFORD 1981, 61). The text saw wide transmission both in
manuscript and recurrent prints (cf. KAPP 1886, 336ff.). On the matter of menstrual inter-
course, Raymond warns that the woman will bring forth leprous or red-haired children, pueros
leprosos vel cum rufis crinibus (BROWE 1932, 14, n. 82).
35
WOOD 1981, 716.
194
Due to the lack of self control: Text 29
in their case, owing to the great bulk of nourishment there is, Nature cannot
gain the mastery over it so as to bring about well-proportioned growth [...]
Similar to this is the disease which is known as satyriasis; in this too, a large
bulk of unconcocted flux or pneuma finds its way into parts of the face of the
animal, and in consequence the face actually appears like that of a satyr.37
36
DEMAITRE 1998, 609.
37
Arist. GA, 768b, 25–36, translated by Arthur Peck, who comments that the last sentence “is
probably a marginal note which has crept into the text; in any case it is corrupt, and ‘uncon-
cocted pneuma’ is meaningless” (PECK 1965, 413). Nonetheless, it is fully compatible with
the rest of the paragraph: Bekker’s suggestion, to bracket ý Ô
as the problematic part
of the phrase º Ô
ý Ô
Ò
#¯=, is a feasible solution. On the other
hand, corresponding expressions about unconcocted pneuma do appear in Galen and others.
See, for example, Gal. De locis affectis, 8, 280 (in connection to a passage dealing with in-
flamed tumours, erysipelas, ulcers, and abscesses): @Ñ=
’ ©
Ó %Ñ#
#<ò
##Ñ @<Ó<
, Ô
Ò
}å #ò= . On Galen’s
pneumatology, see TEMKIN 1977, 154–161. Cf. also the statement attributed to Resh Lakish in
Leviticus Rabbah 15:2 (5th c. CE), maintaining that “much blood produces much šn (boils);
much sperm produces much racat (leprosy)” (cited from ZIAS 1989, 28). Simeon ben Lakish
(Resh Lakish) lived in Syria Palæstina in the 3rd c. CE.
195
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
The analogy with the athletes’ regimen is apt, since menstrual blood was
both created from women’s intake of food (compare the plethora theory,
above) and also became nourishment (for the fetus and for the suckling
child). This brings us to Galen’s description of elephantiasis:
38
Gal. De tumoribus praeter naturam, 7, 728: ° #<_#> + Ñ= ~ @#Ò} @
Ó,
¤
+ å
<Ò @
_% #<_#^,
Î _×´ + # Ó% Ò# <Ó
^
Ó å _= , @Ó +
# Ó
.
^
> Ñ= _× ¾Ñ
> @ ¤
Ô © <Ó<
>
×%. +
Ñ} @_ ¾
å ¹
% #^.
39
With the discovery of antibiotics some sixty years ago, leprosy became curable and in the
last twenty years the decrease in leprosy cases has been dramatic thanks to this treatment,
from 5.2 million patients in 1985 to around 225,000 registered cases at the beginning of 2007.
Pockets of high endemicity remain in a small number of African countries as well as in Brazil,
India, and Nepal (http://www.who.int/lep/en/).
40
Tachuma Metzora 39:22b (ZIAS 1989, 29). This rabbinic text is usually dated to the 9th c.
CE (STRACK & STEMBERGER 1991, 332).
41
This kind of correlative thinking according to a day-year principle has been employed
mainly in relation to prophetic texts, as, for example, in the case of both Jewish and Christian
interpretations of the Book of Daniel (Dan. 8:14, 8:26, and 9:25).
196
Due to the lack of self control: Text 29
Lepra is an abnormal change of the skin making it rugged, itchy and sore;
sometimes it implies desquamation, sometimes it spreads over larger parts of
the body. [...] Elephantiasis is a condition which makes the skin thick and un-
even and the whites of the eyes livid in color. The extreme parts of hands and
feet decay and give off a livid and foul-smelling pus.47
42
RICHARDS 1977, 9. This explanation is fully passable, but Ps.-Galen prefers another: the
resemblance of the skin and feet to those of the elephant (@# }
Ó + ÷ #Ò<
¤
@} ¯
> Ò
× @#Ò}
¨ _ <
×
_ Á
Î Ñ=
Ô
´ ×
#×
, @ . Ps.-Gal. Introductio seu
medicus, 14, 757).
43
From \#}, sheath, shell. Cf. the expressions “leprosy of the flesh” and “leprosy of the
skin.” Even today one often distinguishes between two principal forms of leprosy,
lepromatous and tuberculoid leprosy. The habit of putting down two terms for leprosy, which
is observable in the texts on menstrual intercourse, may thus not have been so far off the
mark. Another possibility, though, is that this was a result of the terminological vagueness in
medical literature, which some authors then tried to compensate for.
44
Cf. the cleansing rules in Lev. 13–14. A recent suggestion is that mold/mildew would not be
an unreasonable candidate explaining racat, since certain fungi (e.g. Stachybotros sp.) can
infest houses as well as manifest themselves in humans as a skin condition with symptoms
matching those described in Leviticus (HELLER, HELLER & SASSON 2003).
45
RICHARDS 1977, 9.
46
Even today, the disease leprosy would probably have a lower mortality rate, had not the
stigma of uncleanness hindered people from asking for help. The age-old stigma associated
with the disease still remains an obstacle to self-reporting and early treatment, according to
WHO (WHO 2005).
47
Ps.-Gal. Def. med., 19, 427f.: . µÒ @
"#¤
^ _%
> @
> }Ô
_Ô
×%, =’ ©
+ # Ó Ó
, ©
+
@Ò
# Ó Ò
^ å
. [...] . # }Ñ @
Ñ= _
> Ò
197
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
198
Due to the lack of self control: Text 29
missing in the author’s train of thought, but, considering the fact that the text
seems to be notes taken down, or a sketch, this is not so remarkable.
The other potential connection of blindness to the subject matter in Text
29 is the importance commonly placed on the menstruant’s gaze. The eye, so
filled with superficial blood vessels, was imagined to have a special relation
to menstrual matter, and therefore capable of carrying pollution as well as
magical and detrimental powers.50 Sight was believed to form a bond be-
tween performer and recipient, and made it necessary to avoid the dangerous
glances of a menstruating woman.51 A passage from Columella seems to
have influenced medieval tradition. In Res rustica, he advises the farmer
“not to allow a woman to enter a field with cucumbers and gourds, because
their vigorous growth will wither through contact with her. And if she is
menstruating, she will even with her glance kill newly planted shoots.” Al-
though it is perfectly clear that the whole passage deals with greenery—the
next sentence tells us to soak the seed in milk before sowing, to get a tender
and delightful cucumber—later commentators made this a reason to bar
women from looking at newborn children.52 In Text 29 blindness as punish-
ment for menstrual intercourse is only tacitly inferred, but it was made ex-
plicit in similar communications, by Thomas Aquinas among many others.53
Leprosy was also referred to as punishment for lustful and covetous glances.
All in all, menstruation, eye-sight, blindness, and leprosy come together in
an intricate web of connections in ancient and medieval thinking. Add to this
the biblical tradition that blindness could be God’s way of punishing people.
The story in John 9 does not imply a general denial of sin as a cause of dis-
ease: rather the opposite, since the disciples would otherwise not have asked
their question. Jesus’ healing of the blind man is a particular case. Neverthe-
less, it is important that Text 29 also gives a ”scientific” explanation for
blindness, not only pleading “charity” or “love” as the raison d'être for his
50
This belief is present not only in Greco-Roman tradition, as shown in the texts by Aristotle
and Pliny, but is found in Hindu, Zoroastrian, Muslim, and many other cultures as well.
51
The parallel notion of “the evil eye,” still present in many Mediterranean cultures, lies near
at hand; see further RAKOCZY 1996, 134–140.
52
Col. 11. 3. 50–51: Sed custodiendum est, ut quam minime ad eum locum, in quo vel cucu-
meres aut cucurbitae consitae sunt, mulier admittatur. Nam fere contactu eius languescunt
incrementa virentium. Si vero etiam in menstruis fuerit, visu quoque suo novellos fetus ne-
cabit. Cucumis tener et iucundissimus fit, si, ante quam seras, semen eius lacte maceres. The
fear was not restricted to menstruating women: the menstrual poison was believed to multiply
in the body at menopause, since there was no outlet for it anymore; see n. 87, below.
53
On Thomas Aquinas, see further below. His contemporary, Berthold of Ratisbon (d. 1272),
gave further suggestions of possible consequences: Denn das da empfangene Kind wird
entweder mit dem Teufel behaftet oder es wird aussätzig [i.e. leprous] oder es bekommt die
fallende Sucht oder es wird höckericht oder blind oder krumm oder stumm oder blödsinnig
oder es bekommt einen Kopf wie ein Schlegel... Und geschieht ihm dessen nichts..., so fährt es
eines unrechten Todes hin (cited from BROWE 1932, 4). Berthold also explained that so few
medieval Jews were leprous because they observed this law concerning intercourse. Jan Hus
(d. 1415) did not bring up blindness, instead asserting that, in addition to further impairment,
the children would be born squint-eyed or one-eyed(!) (BROWE 1932, 5, n. 25).
199
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
situation. The medical argumentation added by the author of Text 29 has its
roots in Hippocratic teachings. According to these, the humid embryo is set
in motion by fire, and is given its bodily form through a process of solidifi-
cation and condensation in the womb.54 Aristotle, who dissected bird fetuses,
found it quite problematic to explain the creation of the eyes: they seemed
too large for the head at first. His explanation was that they gradually shrink
from the surrounding heat and are perfected at the very last stage in the
womb (or egg). The eyes seem big because of their amount of moisture.
They and the brain take the longest time to form, i.e. to heat up and solidify
(GA, 743b–744b). This corresponds with the description in Text 29, explain-
ing why a premature birth would impede full development of the faculty of
vision.
54
> +
¯ ¬
^ > $
^
¨
Ô + ^
Ò (Hp. De diaeta, I, 9).
55
The Old Testament book following the (first) book of Ezra, Nehemiah’s book, is in some
LXX manuscripts called the second book of Ezra. The so-called third book of Ezra is an
apocryphal Greek version of both of these. 4 Ezra is a pseudepigraphical apocalyptic work
from the late 1st c. CE. Originally composed in Hebrew, it is preserved only in various transla-
tions from a lost Greek version. Citations in Greek patristic texts and an Oxyrrhyncus papyrus
containing a fragment from ch. 15 (POxy. 1010) confirm the earlier existence of the lost
Greek version, as does some of the phrasings in the Latin translation. The Syriac, Ethiopic,
Armenian, and Arab translations (plus fragments of a Coptic and a Georgian version) further
confirm the importance of this text in the early Christian Church. 4 Ezra is included in the
Ethiopian Orthodox Canon, and it has been appended to many printed versions of the Bible
since the 16th c. (among them King James Version).
56
METZGER 1983, 520. Quotes from 4 Ezra are found, e.g., in Clem. Al. Strom. 3.16 and in
the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas 12:1.
200
Due to the lack of self control: Text 29
menstruous women shall bring forth monsters.”57 Here is a text which ap-
pears to correspond with Pliny’s views—or at least later readings of Pliny.
The English translation above is based on the Vulgate: et mulieres parient
menstruatae monstra. However, if we scrutinize the other branches of the
Ezra tradition this formulation seems askew. Frederik Klijn has collected the
textual evidence in his 1992 German translation “[n]ach dem lateinischen
Text unter Benutzung der anderen Versionen.” The text he renders is “und
Weiber werden Ungeheuer gebären.” I cite his apparatus in full, with the
abbreviated sigla written out:
Something must have happened with the Latin translation along the way of
its transmission, which has subsequently left its traces in many translations
into modern languages.58 Klijn shows that the word monstra is a translation
of the Greek
\
, a word which can mean both “monstrosities” and
“signs” in a more neutral sense, something which is reflected in the Syriac
and other translations. The word menstruatae, on the other hand, is only
present in the Latin version, and could have been inserted by mistake,
through dittography (menstr-/monstr-).59 Another possibility would be that a
scribe who wanted to “clarify” the reading in 4 Ezra simply added the word
menstruatae to mulieres. Whichever the case, the curse on menstruants got
new fuel, undeservedly this time, since menstruation was not even men-
tioned in the original text.
Another “monster myth” in Eastern literature is the gnostic story about
Sophia—Wisdom—bringing forth a child, Yaldabaoth, the Demiurge, with-
out the assistance of a father.60 This child, Yaldabaoth, created solely from
menstrual matter, turned out an androgynous, lion-faced monster, blind,
ignorant, weak and lustful.61 Although there is no outright reference to lep-
rosy here, it is worth noting that one of the main features of elephantiasis
mentioned in Greek medical texts was the facies leonina, or #
Ó. The
gnostic heterodoxy had a certain influence over the early Church, evident,
for instance, in the more or less continuing Christian repugnance toward the
57
4 Ezra, 5:8; translation METZGER 1983, 532.
58
Klijn’s Latin text is based upon ten manuscripts, the earliest of which is from the 7th c.
(KLIJN 1983, 13–15).
59
KLIJN 1983, 11f. and 34. A nasal abbreviation, as we have it in one manuscript (V) may
also have contributed to the misreading; cf. the apparatus in KLIJN 1983, 34).
60
The myth about Sophia and Yaldabaoth is transmitted in The Apocryphon of John, present
in different versions in three Nag Hammadi codices. The originally Greek text has survived
only through its Coptic translation. See further WALDSTEIN & WISSE 1995.
61
FISCHER-MUELLER 1990, 80.
201
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
material world and the body. Nevertheless, the “monster argument” in con-
nection with menstrual sex has been explored mainly in the Latin tradition,
perhaps due to Pliny’s authority. By and large, the impression is that the ban
on menstrual intercourse has been treated somewhat differently in Greek and
Latin texts. The tendency to indulge in possible consequences appears to be
more uninhibited in the Western medieval material compared to its Greek
and Byzantine counterparts. Did the Aristotelian revival in the West inspire
these misogynic treatises? Was it a sudden outbreak of leprosy in Western
Europe which made the argument useful? Or was it simply convenient for
the ecclesiastical authorities to use intimidating tactics to restrain debauch-
ery?62 This is not the place to fully investigate these matters; I can only
sketch part of the process through a few selected authors and texts.
Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–ca. 215 CE) provides an early juxtaposi-
tion of Leviticus and Aristotle. In The Instructor he asserts that Moses him-
self forbade husbands to approach their menstruant wives. “Because it is not
appropriate that bodily discharge should defile the fertile seed, soon to be a
human being, and indeed not that the filthy flow of matter and discharge
should swill out the seed to well-formed generation, robbing from it the fur-
rows of the womb.”63 The picture here is that of a plethora of humor flushing
the male seed out of the womb. It does not overtly state that deformity in the
fetus will come about. But the opposite correlation of “filthy flow” and “seed
to well-formed generation” left the field open for the readers—and later au-
62
Given the medical outlook of the time, the ban on menstrual sex can admittedly be seen as
comprehensible. Even so, one cannot discount the possibility that a Church agenda of pre-
ferred chastity lay behind some of these rules. Would all periods of “natural contraception”—
menstruation, pregnancy and lactation—have been off limits, if it were not for the patent
demand that all carnal intimacy had to have procreation as its goal? Why, if not to minimize
licentious behavior, did the Church spread the word that children created through intercourse
on Sundays and feast days fell victim to the same diseases as those begotten during menstrua-
tion? Cf. Caesarius of Arles, Serm. 44, 7: qui uxorem suam in profluvio positam agnoverit,
aut in die dominico aut in alia qualibet sollemnitate se continere noluerit, qui tunc concepti
fuerint, aut leprosi aut epileptici aut forte etiam daemoniosi nascuntur (CCSL 103, 199).
Likewise, Gregory of Tours held that children engendered on a Sunday would be born crip-
pled, epileptic or leprous (METZLER 2006, 88f.). On prescribed sexual abstinence on Sundays
and feast days, see BRUNDAGE 1987, 157–162. In Byzantine texts, this ban does not come
forth very strongly (DAGRON 1998, 168). Balsamon mentions it (PG 138, 900), but does not
indicate any grave consequences. In the Life of St. Andrew the Fool, though, the tone is differ-
ent: Andrew explains that a man who relapses into this offense could bring death upon him-
self (ll. 2869–2892; RYDÉN 1995, II, 198–202 and 335). According to an early Islamic source,
the hadith after Judhama bint Wahb, the prohibition of intercourse during lactation was not
upheld in Byzantium: “I was there when the Prophet was with a group saying, ‘I was about to
prohibit the ¢la [i.e. intercourse with breastfeeding women], but I observed the Byzantines
and the Persians, and saw them do it, and their children were not harmed’” (MUSALLAM 1983,
15f.).
63
Clem. Al., Paed. 2.10.92:
<^
>
°%¯
<
-
< Ô #Ñ , ý
@Ó =Ñ @ _Ò
Ô_%. Â <Ñ %
û#<
Î =Ñ
^ å
> <å
^ Ò
’ ¾#Ó<
·=% <> #Ô + ¤ #Ô
Î ºÎ
¯ ¹# º Ô
-
=Ñ
Ò [+] < Ò % }^
¯ ò
Ô #Ñ%.
202
Due to the lack of self control: Text 29
thors—to make their own conclusions. The wording of Clement echoes Philo
of Alexandria, who, likewise, points to fertility being the main concern.64
Philo only says that the seed will be swept away and utterly destroyed if
sown during menstruation—no talk of disabled babies here. In the same
paragraph he also criticizes the intemperate pleasure-seeking of men who
connect themselves with barren women, coveting the carnal enjoyment “like
boars or goats.” The menstruant is seen as temporarily barren: that is why
the husband should not waste his seed. Incidentally, in addition to describing
the incentive for non-procreational sex in words similar to those of Text 29,
’ $ $
, Philo’s text has the same imagery as Text 29: having
intercourse out of mere lust is to behave like swine, %
, just as the
exhortation in Text 29 was that we not “become like swine in the mire.”
One church father, Lactantius, seems to hold a middle ground in this mat-
ter:65 he does not mention menstrual intercourse, only unlimited lusts, but
there are wordings which indicate that his text was taken to mean that later
on. In Divinae Institutiones IV, 26, Lactantius speaks of the figurative mean-
ing of Christ’s sufferings and the significance of His divine works. After
mentioning the blind, deaf, dumb, and lame, he adds that He also cleansed
the stains and blemishes of defiled bodies:66
this [...] prefigured that by the instruction of righteousness His doctrine was
about to purify those defiled by the stains of sins and the blemishes of vices.
For they ought truly to be accounted as leprous and unclean [leprosi enim
vere atque elephantiaci debent haberi], whom either boundless lusts compel
to crimes, or insatiable pleasures to disgraceful deeds, and affect with an ev-
erlasting stain [labe] those who are branded with the marks of dishonourable
actions.67
Essential here is that Lactantius does not say that the lustful and dishonor-
able will be leprous, but that they may be seen as, held as leprous.68 Lactan-
tius is expounding the figurative meaning of Christ’s works and connects
64
Philo, Spec. Leg. 32–36: ¶
Ó% ~×
<Ò
, ¤ ®Ò
% <> ò,
##
> _× @ ~#Ó _Ò
% × }Ô % Ô Ã
× ¤
# < Ó Ô _Ñ ¯ =. [...]
#ò
<
³ }
Ê>
¯ Ê<×
× _#=
× ## Ã @#= Ó.
65
Born in Roman Africa in 240, Lactantius worked as a teacher of rhetoric in Nicomedia
(Izmit), but moved westwards during Diocletian’s persecutions. At the end of his life, he
tutored Emperor Constantine’s son in Trier. His life clearly illustrates how interwoven the
East and the West were at the time, and, consequently, that we cannot disregard the cultural
interchange between Latin and Greek texts.
66
In accordance with the Old Testament purity laws, the people with defiled bodies would
logically include lepers and the woman with an issue of blood (see Mt 8, Mk 1, Lk 5, and Lk
17, on Jesus healing lepers; Mt 9, Mk 5, and Lk 8, on the woman who had bled for twelve
years).
67
COXE 1989, 127.
68
Cf. Ps.-Justin Martyr, n. 24, above.
203
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
leprosy with lustful deeds, but on a symbolic plane. Nevertheless, his last
sentence is ambiguous: the word labes may be taken for destruction, ruin in
a more common sense, or it may stand for spot, stain.69 Although, according
to Lactantius, the sinners themselves are those branded with the marks of
shameful actions, the later tradition may have reinterpreted this as if it were
the offspring that was marked. Likewise, the nuance in debent haberi, was
dropped: the almost unanimous verdict of later writers became that they (the
children) will be leprous. The passage in Divinae Institutiones is also inter-
esting from another point of view: it presents an early instance of the word
combination “leprosus et elephantiacus”; as we will see, this phrase turns up
time and again in both Greek and Latin texts on the subject of menstrual
intercourse.
Around 380 CE the Didascalia was expanded and revised to be part of the
Apostolic Constitutions, a collection of canonical and liturgical instructions.
Though the section on women’s fluxes differs significantly from its precur-
sor, it nevertheless presents a relatively balanced view on the issue. In Const.
App. 6. 28 we read that husbands should not approach their wives when their
natural purgations appear, “out of concern for those engendered.”70 This
could indicate adherence to the view that children would fall victim to de-
formity or illness (even if that is not stated outright), but it could also be that,
just as in the case of Clement of Alexandria, above, there is an understanding
here that none at all are born out of menstrual sex. The context is very much
focused on procreation as such: one should not have intercourse at all if not
to bring forth children, for it is not befitting for a lover of God to be a lover
of pleasure.71 Note that a few lines earlier the text actually states that the
menses, }¤ Ñ=, are not abominable to God. The medical expla-
nation, that they were designed to regulate the accumulation of humor and
strengthen the woman, is recognizable from Aristotle, although in this text
God himself is responsible for the arrangement.72 This view on menses is at
variance with the one in Leviticus. There is no impurity in menstruation:
instead it is pleasure and licentiousness which are impure and abominable.
69
One may also note that the word labes is related to the Greek word #", which was a
terminus technicus for leprosy or elephantiasis (see above, p. 198). Cf. Theodoret of Kyrros
(ca. 393–ca. 466), Quaestiones in Octateuchum, ed. Fernández Marcos & Sáenz-Badillos, p.
172 (in Leviticum, qu. 21): } <Ñ
@
¯
Ô
} Ó #å" #Ò
< =,
^
å
@ Ó
#
× Ó
å
.
70
Const. App. 6. 28, 55–61: } + }Ò%
< Á · ¤
_Ò=% Ó
< %Ò%· < ~ ×· “£> < <Ñ,
}Ó, @ }Ò´ ÷ << .”
71
This is stated clearly regarding intercourse during pregnancy ( @ Ó% < < Ò
^
^) and prostitution ( @ ø <Ò). In the case of adultery, the
unsure status of the children is seen as a problem (
Ô
Ê×
).
72
Const. App. 6. 28, 48–51: Âû
÷ }¤ Ñ= " #
¤ Î,
¤
× "Ó < @
=Ò´
Ñ % _Ñ %
Ó
Ò Ê_Ô, Ã
@ Óø =Ò
> # .
204
Due to the lack of self control: Text 29
Each month women’s heavy and sluggish bodies are alleviated through an
emission of impure blood. They say that if a man has intercourse with a
woman at that time, the fetus will contract the defect of the semen, so that
lepers are born from this conception. And disfigured bodies of either sex,
with shrunken or enormous limbs, will be the degenerate result of the corrupt
blood.74
That Jerome has two words for leprosy is worthy of note: this phrase, leprosi
et elephantiaci, was repeated in several treatises and sermons throughout the
centuries, and has its parallel also in Text 29.75
Isidore of Pelousion has been called a pupil of John Chrysostom (by Ni-
kephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos), something which is chronologically pos-
sible though not confirmed. In three letters this presbyter and monk from
Egypt explains why the Law prohibits lepers and others who suffer involun-
tary diseases from entering sacred spaces. Whereas in Leviticus lepers and
menstruants were two separate groups, each in its own way subject to the
purity laws, there is now total symmetry between leprosy and menstrual sex.
Why did the lawgiver not permit the leprous inside the sancta? Because their
parents had been lascivious and intemperate, Isidore says (
¤ < $
73
Nihil immundius menstruata, quæ quidquid attigerit, immundum facit (Jerome, Comm. in
Zech. 13:1, PL 25, 1517).
74
Per singulos menses, gravia atque torpentia mulierum corpora, immundi sanguinis effu-
sione relevantur. Quo tempore si vir coierit cum muliere, dicuntur concepti fœtus vitium
seminis trahere: ita ut leprosi et elephantiaci ex hac conceptione nascantur, et fœda in utro-
que sexu corpora, parvitate vel enormitate membrorum, sanies corrupta degeneret (Jerome,
Comm. in Ezek. 18:6, PL 25, 173).
75
Sharon Faye Koren states that “the Council of Nicea (325 CE) warned that husbands who
approach their menstruating wives risk elephantiasis and leprosy for themselves and their
unborn children” (KOREN 2004, 331). But this needs rectification: the decree in question
comes from the Arabic spuria, later additions to the twenty officially established canons of
the Council. These 80 canons (in Turrianus’ edition) or 84 (in Abraham Ecchelensis’) “pre-
tend to be translations of lost Greek originals, but are demonstrably falsifications made for
various special purposes” (DOWNEY 1958, 228). According to Carl Joseph Hefele, they are of
much later origin (HEFELE 1855, 348f.; Hefele’s examples indicate a terminus post quem in
the 5th, 6th, and even 10th c., for some of them). Canon 29, on the menstruant’s exclusion from
mass, is reprinted in MANSI 1759, II, 990 (from Ecchelensis’ edition; notice that this canon is
not included in Turrianos’ edition, which is why it is not mentioned in The Select Library of
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers; PERCIVAL 1977). The prohibition of Canon 29 is extended to
cover menstrual intercourse in Caput VIII of the “Sanctions and Decrees by the Same 318
Holy Fathers,” also translated from Arabic by Ecchelensis (MANSI, II, 1038). For our pur-
poses, the Arabic spurious canons cannot help establishing how these ideas became part of the
teachings of the Church, but the word combination of elephantiasis et leprae morbo suggests
the wide dissemination of the tradition, in Arabic as well as Greek and Latin texts.
205
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
<\% #%).76 To curb the parents’ intemperance, put reins on their
lust, and set a limit to the copulation, the law on lepers was established.
From untimely intercourse polluted and ugly-looking bodies (=
_=¯
) are born.77 In the letter to Valens, Isidore elucidates the
position of those who are born leprous: it is not those who are born out of
this $ who are retributed most severely, but the parents. The former
group may not consider it a punishment, long used to the illness as they are.
Conversely, the punishment on the latter group is pernicious, while instead
of seeing their offspring surpass them they see them debarred from the holy
assembly. For those who suffer involuntarily, the misfortune is lighter to
bear, but the pain is unbearable for those who know that it is a sign of their
deliberate intemperance. This standpoint is important for our understanding
of the role assigned to lepers in late ancient society: far from being seen as
mere outcasts and condemned sinners, lepers could actually be regarded as
blessed. In their infirmity and suffering, they had, according to church au-
thorities, already endured purgatory and were thereby closer to paradise.
Gregory of Nazianzos called leprosy the Sacred Disease (a term traditionally
used for epilepsy), and Gregory of Nyssa tried to convince his congregation
not to withdraw from lepers but instead follow the Lord’s example, and ac-
cept, feed, and embrace them, thereby earning salvation for their own souls
as well.78 Basil the Great and John Chrysostom acted accordingly, initiating
the construction of leprosaria in Caesarea and just outside Constantinople.
These were never intended for expulsion or confinement, but for the benefit
and health of the lepers. That this view lasted through the centuries, is shown
from Theodore Balsamon’s testimony that lepers in twelfth-century Constan-
tinople continued to live with healthy people (PG 138, 552).79
The Latin tradition on the prohibition of menstrual intercourse almost
unanimously carries the stamp of Jerome’s account. Isidore of Seville (ca.
560–636) is a rare exception. Indeed, he communicates Pliny’s views on the
menstruum’s poisonous quality for crops, et cetera. (Etym. XI. 140–142).
Although he has much information on portents and monsters, he does not
explicitly say that they are created from menstrual intercourse, only that
“after many menstrual days the semen is no longer germinable because there
76
Isid. Pel., Ep. 3.46; PG 78, 761–764. The same point is borne out in Ep. 4.141 (ed. Évieux,
Ep. 1251; PG 78, 1220–21). In the former letter, Isidore gives a telling explanation as to why
the husbands approach their wives before the purgation is over: they think the woman is
faking it ($
#=
¤ <).
77
Isid. Pel., Ep. 4.117 (ed. Évieux, Ep. 1489; PG 78, 1192).
78
Gr. Naz., De pauperum amore, PG 35, 865; Gr. Nyss., In illud: Quatenus uni ex his fecistis
mihi fecistis (=de pauperibus amandis II), PG 46, 471–489. On the rise of Christian philan-
thropy and the sermons of the two Gregories, see HOLMAN 1999.
79
The same message is present in Matthew Blastares’ Syntagma of imperial and canonical
law, from ca. 1335. He refers to John Nesteutes, i.e. Patriarch John IV, d. 525 (Blastares,
Collectio alphabetica. Kappa, 28). For further examples of compassionate treatment of lepers,
and how this tradition also reached Western Europe, see MILLER & SMITH-SAVAGE 2006.
206
Due to the lack of self control: Text 29
80
LEWIS 1980, 3.
81
Quis enim nesciat concubitum etiam coniugalem nunquam omnino committi sine pruritu
carnis, sine fervore libidinis, sine fetore luxurie?Unde semina concepta fedantur, maculantur
et vitiantur, ex quibus tandem anima infusa contrahit labem peccati, maculam culpe, sordem
iniquitatis (De miseria, ed. Maccarrone, I, iii, 1). Cf. also the 15th-c. treatise De lepra, where
the anonymous author frankly states that leprous children are generated through menstrual sex
because at that time of the month the woman enjoys sex more (Istis temporibus pueri leprosi
maxime generantur in conceptione menstruantis quia tunc mulier tempore menstruorum plus
delectatur in coitu quia sanguis eius mordicat et sic venit titillatio. Et sic cum puer concipitur
in fluxu menstruorum sine dubio incurrerit lepram vel scabiem; Basel MS D.III.10, cited from
DEMAITRE 1985, 334).
82
De miseria I, iv, 4: Concepti fetus vitium seminis contrahunt, ita ut leprosi et elephantici ex
hac corruptione nascantur.
83
De miseria I, v, 1: Quidam enim tam deformes et prodigiosi nascuntur, ut non homines, sed
abhominationes potius videantur (the spelling of abhominatio suggests that Lotario saw an
etymological connection to homo instead of omen – monsters as non-human or sub-human
creatures).
207
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
play a weightier part. Avicenna (980–1037) taught that leprosy could be due
to heredity and to the condition in the womb, as in the case of conception
during menstruation.84 Rabbinic teachings were also part of this interchange
of ideas, and since Persian, Arabic, and Jewish philosophy had absorbed
much Hellenistic material, it is often hard to distinguish between different
paths, and directions, of influence. The medical centers, such as Salerno,
were important junctions for the discussion of philosophical and medical
theory as well as medical practice.85 The Trotula texts on women’s medicine,
created and compiled in Salerno, became an integrative part of European
gynecological expertise.86 Other texts, just as, or even more, popular were far
more speculative in their outlook: Pseudo-Albertus Magnus’ De secretis
mulierum expatiates on the venomous character of the menstruant, and, to-
gether with the commentators on the text, gives several pieces of advice on
why one should avoid menstrual sex: the outcome for the male is leprosy
and/or cancer in the male member, and the fetus will become leprous or epi-
leptic. 87
Roughly, one may distinguish between three different kinds of texts
which convey the tradition of harm caused by menstrual intercourse: texts of
(mainly) theological, philosophical, and medical content. Sometimes these
aspects come together and the impact of one upon the other is unmistakable.
Text 29 would belong to the theological sphere, even though medical theory
is used to support the dogmas. If we return to texts by church authorities, we
may mention Thomas Aquinas as a representative of the Catholic tradition.
Thomas refers to Jerome on the matter in question, but develops the number
of diseases mentioned: “thus is a deformed, blind, lame, leprous offspring
conceived: so that those parents who are not ashamed to come together in
84
Avicenna, The Canon of Medicine / Al-Qanun fi al-tibb, IV.3.iii.1; cf. DEMAITRE 1985, 332.
85
Sharon Faye Koren shows how the gynecological theories of Isaac the Blind (1165–1235)
and Nahmanides (1194–1270) are a mixture of kabbalistic theosophy, medicine, and natural
philosophy. Their attitudes towards menstruation and the niddh (menstruant) correspond
closely with Galenic and Aristotelian models, though, naturally, there was a long rabbinic
tradition to build on as well. The association of menstrual blood and inflammatory skin dis-
ease (leprosy) is expounded on, but Koren also mentions the Jewish tradition that children
engendered during menstruation were impudent. The male participant in menstrual sex is
punished with premature death, according to rabbinic teachings; Nahmanides, and other kab-
balists, reinterpreted this to signify destruction of the soul (KOREN 2004).
86
See, for example, GREEN 2001, Introduction.
87
The menstruant’s hair is filled with venom; her body expels toxics which makes men in her
vicinity hoarse; by their glance, old women who still menstruate (and some who do not) can
poison the eyes of children lying in their cradles; non-menstruating women are even more
seriously infected, more toxic, because the menstrual flow has a purgative function, et cetera.
Beside Aristotle, his main authority, Pseudo-Albert relies heavily on Avicenna and Averroes.
De secretis mulierum, composed in the late 13th or early 14th c., saw abundant proliferation in
manuscript and printed form. Moreover, it had an impact on witchcraft persecution by serving
as a direct source for the 15th-c. inquisitorial treatise, Malleus Maleficarum (LEMAY 1992, 49–
58).
208
Due to the lack of self control: Text 29
sexual intercourse have their sin made obvious to all.”88 That he explicitly
mentions blindness may give some perspective to the fact that the com-
piler/author of Text 29 saw fit to comment upon that kind of impairment.
The Byzantine Church also continued to express its concerns about men-
strual intercourse, but in a more moderate tone. The few examples I shall cite
here are all from the twelfth century and later, coinciding, perhaps inciden-
tally, with the intensified discussion of these matters in the West. It is not
impossible that a fuller treatment of the Greek tradition would alter this pic-
ture. The canonist Theodore Balsamon, mentioned above for his views on
lepers, does not discuss menstrual intercourse, focusing only on whether a
woman could be baptized when menstruating, if she could participate in
Communion, et cetera.89 Nikephoros Blemmydes, who in fact includes quite
a number of references to John Chrysostom in his work, nevertheless has
Isidore of Pelousion as his only authority on the question of menstrual inter-
course (cf. Isidore’s views above). This speaks against the attribution of Text
29 to Chrysostom.90 One aspect which could support the association, is
Chrysostom’s frequent usage of medical discourse in the sermons. Neverthe-
less, this is not particular to him, but appears in other patristic texts as well.91
Finally, Michael Glykas, in his @ $ X
Y * Y [#*, a text
that, interestingly enough, we know the scribe of Gr 8, Theodoros, had ac-
cess to:92 there Glykas deals with the question whether unborn babies who
die prematurely, do so because God foresaw that they would turn out ex-
ceedingly wicked (question 37). The author refutes this, arguing that in such
a case none of us would have been born, and “besides, it is from natural
causes that the infants suffer this, and are often carried off.” Then Glykas
adds Ì < ©
¤ ·%
å
´ < #³,
= ¤ ¥å´
Î £#å
Õ ,
^
×-
<Ó
(a sickly man who is intimate with a sickly woman will bring
forth sickly children). The reference here is to Isidore of Pelousion, the same
letter that was mentioned above (Ep. 4.141). But Glykas foregoes menstrual
intercourse, instead emphasizing the part of Isidore’s letter where he states
that lepers can be sick due to heredity and not only as the result of their par-
ents’ intemperance. God does not want to act on his foresight, patiently
awaiting our remorse instead. In addition, He has given us herbs and medical
science, so that we act wisely to remove imminent threats to our health. Oth-
88
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl., question 64, 3.
89
Cf. VISCUSO 2005, 321.
90
John Chrysostom is referred to, now and then, in connection with—what we would call—
misogynic views, for instance in the Malleus Maleficarum, just mentioned: De mulierum vero
malitia differitur [...] Criso(stomus) super Mat. xix (f. C5r in the editio princeps from 1487;
ed. SCHNYDER 1991, 41; cf. PG 56, 803). The pseudo-Chrysostomic sermon included in Gr 8
certainly substantiates this connection, and this, more commonly aimed, scorn of wicked
women, may be what lies behind the attribution of Text 29 to the Antiochene church father.
91
On medical discourse in John Chrysostom and other patristic authors, see FRINGS 1959.
92
Theodoros copied Glykas’ @ $ X
Y * Y [#* in Par. gr. 3045 (see p. 57).
209
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
erwise, Michael Glykas says, we would soon see our destruction from negli-
gence and not due to natural causes. The destruction not coming from natural
causes is our own responsibility, as is the caution we take deciding when to
have intercourse. This is not spelled out by Glykas, but the knowledge on
this seems to have been present in Byzantine minds, nonetheless. Glykas
even refers to Chrysostom in his argument (Ú ~ _^
¤ <#
Ñ
}), so the question here is: does God’s patience, =Ó, match up
with the < in Text 29? Could Theodoros himself be the one who added
the last paragraph of Text 29, acting on what he may have read in @ $
X
Y * Y [#*? The fact that the next text in Gr 8, by Mark
Eugenikos, brings up the question of predetermination and the end of life, as
well as the correspondence between our sins and the penalties we must en-
dure, is also a striking coincidence, in relation to the problems stated in Text
29. Tying the discussion on intemperance and menstrual intercourse to the
two preceding, misogynic, texts in Gr 8 was unproblematic, but now it turns
out that there is also a logic within the texts following Text 29. The theologi-
cal problems concerning the end of life, sin and retribution, and the question
of how God endures the fact that so many sinners perish (Texts 30, 31 and
32), are, to my mind, a compatible line of thought which has everything to
do with iniquity and retaliation, reflected also in the dilemma of how disease
and God’s charity add up (Text 29).
93
Pliny, HN, VIII, 12f.; Plut., %+ "
, Mor. 8, question 6.
210
Due to the lack of self control: Text 29
still anxious to make this fit with “scientific” explanation. This makes Text
29 a fascinating example of Byzantine culture as the recipient and trans-
former of cultural influx from various times and places, just as Codex Upsa-
liensis Graecus 8, in its turn, may be seen as such a transformer, with its
unique combination of texts from different times, genres, and cultures.
211
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
94
Ibn Khaldûn (1332–1406) maintained that “[w]hen the sand diviners came, they discontin-
ued use of the stars and the positions of the spheres, because they found it difficult to establish
the altitude of stars by means of instruments and to find the adjusted (positions of the) stars by
means of calculations. Therefore, they invented their combinations of figures. […] Many city
dwellers who had no work, in order to make a living, tried sand divination” (IBN KHALDÛN,
Muqaddimah I, 204; transl. Rosenthal, 1958, 228).
95
GRAUX & MARTIN 1889, 328. The information in Sofía Torallas Tovar’s description of Gr 8
is just as meager: “Expl. fol. 283v: ilegible. Sigue un círcolo con los signos del horóscopo al
final de la página. Fol. 284r: Astrologica quaedam” (TORALLAS TOVAR 1994, 237).
96
Thdt. Affect. 4.5–16 and 4.32–42; 5.8–52; 6.11–26.
212
The method of ramplion: Text 66
the moon is, while, for example, ignoring how deep the sea is.97 On the other
hand, in paragraphs 38–42, which are included in the Gr 8 excerpts, the dis-
cussion touches upon the Logos as Demiurge, generating the sun, moon, and
planets for the sake of time counting. Here Theodoret refers to Euripides, to
underscore that the stars are the servants of men: “but you, you accept to
serve your servants and credit them with divine majesty.”98 The excerpts
from Book 5 and 6 bring up other subjects which may be of importance in
connection with divination: human fortune and misfortune, freedom and
necessity, destiny and providence. Nevertheless, even if a text on astrology
and divination could somehow be seen to fit in with the patristic text, it is
unlikely that the excerpts from the Cure were included in the codicological
unit with divination in mind. Rather the other way around: questions of
man’s destiny, the function of the stars (set up in accordance with God’s
plan for man), fortune and adversity, as included in an authoritative Christian
text, could secondarily have triggered Theodoros to put the geomantic text
here. A view of planets and fixed stars as man’s servants could actually open
up for the use of astral divination, letting knowledge about the “servants”
improve one’s life, so to speak. Some readers may disagree with my attempt
to create a meaningful connection between these two texts, and, rightly, one
should not stretch this endeavor too far. My impression, though, is that
Theodoros was a thoughtful copyist, who knew what he was up to. An alter-
native way of looking at this juxtaposition would be to say that an unlikely
combination of texts is part of the charm of late and post-Byzantine miscel-
lanies: lendings and borrowings of texts, cultural crossovers, are characteris-
tic of this pan-Mediterranean literary culture. These “Arabic” divinatory
texts were translated and imported into Spain, Provence, Italy, and Byzan-
tium, just as the Greek and Latin patristic texts continued to be part of the
heritage of Egypt, Ethiopia, Syria, and beyond. Even so, before we take a
closer look at Text 66, some perspective on the use of divination in Byzan-
tium could be of value.
97
Thdt. Affect. 4.24.
98
Thdt. Affect. 4.41; Eur. Ph. 546.
213
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
99
See further PINGREE 1997, passim.
100
As Brigitte Pitarakis affirms, the use of Pre-Christian amuletic images actually continued
throughout all Byzantine periods, at the same time as their Christian counterparts were en-
dowed with multivalent functions, both apotropaic and devotional (PITARAKIS 2006, 180).
101
That this dividing line was thin is apparent from the vehement claims of several authors
that they only write about astrology and similar pursuits on a theoretical level, never to actu-
ally practise it themselves. Was this perhaps a necessary defense against condemnation from
stricter orthodox circles? Cf. Paul Magdalino, who discusses whether in the time of Michael
Psellos and Symeon Seth an attempt was made to “scientificate” astrology, separating it from
other forms of magic (MAGDALINO 2006, 95–96 and 121). On the attitudes of Psellos and
Michael Italikos towards magic, see also DUFFY 1995.
102
For a summary of demonological beliefs current in Palaiologan times, see GREENFIELD
1988, 307–326.
103
Carolina Cupane shows how the entries in the Constantinopolitan Patriarchal Register can
provide interesting insights into people’s everyday life and the measures taken by the secular
and ecclesiastical authorities to restrain unwanted activities (CUPANE 1980).
104
Astrologers from the middle and late Byzantine period were in fact likely to be “members
of the educated élite, associated with the imperial court and consulted by the rich and power-
ful” (MAGDALINO 2002, 37). Cf. Hans-Georg Beck’s view: “Es ist erstaunlich, wie weit ver-
breitet auch in den höchsten Kreisen die Praktiken der Mantik waren und was es sonst an
214
The method of ramplion: Text 66
zauberischen Krimskrams gab. Selbst die Kaiser machen hier keine Ausnahme […]. Gelehrte
wie Michael Psellos, Patriarchen wie Michael Kerullarios und Historiker vom Format eines
Niketas Choniates waren überzeugt, dass an diesen Praktiken ‘etwas war’” (BECK 1978, 268).
105
The medico-magical manuscript Cod. Bonon. 3632, would seem to illustrate the caution
which scribes and writers of such books had to take. The physician John of Aro (son of
Aaron?), who copied the manuscript in 1442, did put his subscription and owner’s notices in
the book but always in cryptographic characters. In its 475 folios the manuscript contains
astrological, medical, and geomantic texts, dreambooks, spells, and much more. For John of
Aro’s subscription, see MCCOWN 1922, 23f. Lynn Thorndike, whose survey of the Western
magic tradition is still very important, explicitly states that he deals with the learned literature
of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, but he also points out that “astrological prediction
rode high in public favor, producing most of the ‘best sellers’ of the incunabula period”
(THORNDIKE 1934, vol. 4, 611).
106
Manuel Komnenos, for example, wrote a controversial defense of astrology, a science
which he considered necessary for both politics and medicine (MAGDALINO 2006, 109–132).
The Palaiologan emperors Andronikos III, John V, and Andronikos IV all consulted astrolo-
gers. Maria Mavroudi suggests that the volatile times and continually escalating political
troubles could have incited the Palaiologan rulers to resort to such predictions (MAGDALINO &
MAVROUDI 2006, 72).
107
KALVESMAKI 2006.
108
The quotation is preserved in Servius’ commentary to Vergil’s Aeneid (Serv. A. 3. 359).
215
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
whereas in the Middle Ages the term came to bear upon “sand divination”
instead, at least in Latin texts. This sand divination, or method of ramplion
as it is called in Text 66, is the subject approached here.
As we will see later on (p. 232), the origin of this art of divination is not
fully clear. But it seems likely that in the form outlined in Text 66 it reached
Byzantium and the Occident by way of Arabic influence, some time in the
twelfth or thirteenth century.109 The geomantic nomenclature used in Greek
manuscripts is often transliterated Arabic, even though the art is more often
introduced as Persian by Byzantine scribes.110 The name of the art commonly
met with in Greek manuscripts, º# (in some texts spelled out
º"# or º#) matches the Arabic word for sand, raml, and refers
to the method of “writing” in the sand, ashes or whatever medium was at
hand.111 The procedure could be modified by using things like grain, pebbles,
or even paper and ink.112 In some manuscripts the art also has a genuinely
Greek name, #
¬ or “stone chisel,” which probably refers to the tool
used for striking the sand or soil.113
109
An early reference often mentioned is the translation and versification of Al-Zan tã’s
geomantic treatise by the monk Arsenios in 1266 (inc. "$"# \}
$ ®,
#.; extant e.g. in Cod. Berol. 173, where a marginal addition says: õ¹
\%
£\¨
<#
| $ _^; CCAG 7, 49); the author Al-Zan tã (Ab ‘Abdal-
l h al-Zan tã) is referred to in several manuscripts, e.g. in Bonon. 3632, Neapol. II.C.33, Par.
gr. 2381, Par. gr. 2424, and Vindob. phil. gr. 108. Latin translations are attested from around
the mid-12th c., a couple of the earliest being by Hugh of Santalla and Gerard of Cremona
(CHARMASSON 1980, 93). Anne Regourd has discussed the manuscript situation and the lack
of scholarly editions for Al-Zan tã’s Arabic treatise, but I could not get access to this article
(REGOURD 2001).
110
Par. gr. 2491:
¯ ¯
\_
^ º#$; Par. gr. 2424: £=<^ #
-
$ Ä
º"#$, ¹
% % # <\
$; Cod. Laur. 86, 14: ²#$ û
>
$.
111
The term “geomancy” in Greek manuscripts often indicates that the text is a translation
from a Latin model. The procedure of sand divination was described in one of the earliest
Arabic sources as the act of tracing marks on the ground, al-ar bi ’l-ha (Ibn al-cAr bã, d. ca.
844 CE; FAHD 1966, 196). Variant terms are al-kha bi-raml, sand-writing, cilm al-raml, sand-
science, and
arb al-raml, sand-striking (FAHD 1978, 1128). Greek designations hinting at the
use of sand are
and
\_
¯ ® (sand divination, sand art; DELATTE &
DELATTE 1936, 577), and ®
(cf. CCAG 8:1, p. 71). To those one may add the
term
$
¯ ® (sand astronomy).
112
Joel Kalvesmaki mentions a Byzantine variant, where the geomantic figures were created
with the help of lines picked at random from the Gospels or the Psalter: one used the first four
letters in the line, checked whether the numbers they represented were odd or even, and put
up for each of them a single dot or a pair of dots accordingly to create the figure (KALVES-
MAKI 2006; as we will see below, this corresponds to the method of ramplion, where figures
are also made up of single or pairs of dots). This practice may, however, have been a Byzan-
tine adaptation of a more general usage: a similar case but with the use of the Kor’an (
"Ó"#
^ °%Ñ =) instead of the Bible, is indicated by the 15th-c. chronicler John Kananos
(De Constantinopoli oppugnata, 249f.). Cf. also Pieter van der Horst’s discussion of Jewish,
pagan, and early Christian oracle books (VAN DER HORST 1998).
113
DELATTE & DELATTE 1936, 577f.; cf. TANNERY 1920, 322, and DESROUSSEAUX 1886, 542–
544. The use of a “stone chisel” might seem weird in connection with sand, but as an epigra-
pher’s implement it could perhaps count as a tool for “writing” in general, just as the verb
<#} was used for carving and engraving as well as for writing. In some manuscripts the
216
The method of ramplion: Text 66
Geomantic texts in Greek have not attracted much scholarly attention and
several of the studies are a hundred years old by now. The only longer text
that has been edited is that of Parisinus graecus 2419, which Armand and
Louis Delatte published in 1936.114 Some excerpts from the same codex and
from Parisinus graecus 2424 (late 14th century), examined by Paul Tannery,
were presented posthumously in 1920; these studies of the subject are still
the most informative in the Byzantine area.115 This dearth of studies in Greek
geomancy justifies a presentation of Text 66, even though it is an incomplete
text of modest size. As we turn to the text the sequence will be the follow-
ing: first, the manuscript text is presented together with a translation. The
succinctness of the text makes it rather opaque even with a translation. Thus,
an explanation of the geomantic chart and of the underlying astrological
concepts will be added. Then we will return to the cultural background to
and dissemination of this divinatory art. Finally some thoughts are added on
the role of ramplion in late Byzantium.
217
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
A. (f. 283v)
\ ¨ Ó, µÒ%, £=Ò £$, }¬, ° %$ (° %$ cod.)
²
$¨ <× %, _×, ¥_=Ô ²$, "¬, ° _¬
B. (f. 284r)
^ º#$ \= <$
¹
%¨ $ ¾$
%
%. ·_
+ >
^
^ \
# ^
(
# ^
cod.)
#. Á + <}
Ú
_% · =^
#<> @^
,
#, \ ·
,
#"
"
$=%
$%. + ,
$=%
>
$%. ¹
% ^
=# ¾$, Ä<
,
$=
\ . ^ + _¬
,
\ #^ .
+
^
#" >
\% _¯
#
.
$=%
>
"=.
#^ _¬
,
\
#^ . ¿
>
_
%
%
\%
\%, Ã
, ^ . >
% $% ^
". >
% ^
¤ .
¤
}
%
^
^ "$
> @
.
218
The method of ramplion: Text 66
116
The spelling of the Egyptian names of the months is normalized; cf. PARKER 1950, 8.
117
: from Latin ordo -inis. $ : according to LSJ it means to “pick the kernel
out of fruit” (used in connection with pomegranates in Aristophanes’ frg. 610). An entry in
Hesychios’ lexicon might be interesting here:
¨ Ó (Hsch., 4239). The first
verb may conceivably be related to ,
(strike) and
(work wrought with
the hammer; LSJ, s. vv.). Considering that the traditional way of de-seeding a pomegranate is
to cut the fruit in halves and whack the back of the fruit firmly and repeatedly with a ladle or
other gadget to knock the arils out, there might be room here for a connection with the Greek
name of this divinatory art, #
¬, which also indicates an element of striking or ham-
mering (cf. n. 113, above). Similarly, the use of a dustboard or wax tablet, where one “beats
out” the marks of one’s future, may be compared to a threshing-floor, where one prepares the
grain for future days, beating it out with the help of a pole or flail. Cf. the use of the verb
in the text of Par. gr. 2491: @
}³
¬Õ
> =+ º#,
ʬ
> @}#\ (DELATTE & DELATTE 1936, 594).
118
The drawing of circles is unusual; in most treatises one is instructed to draw the marks
along 4 x 4 lines, usually from right to left (i.e. the same way Arabic is written).
119
The standard designation of the kinship pattern is: four mothers, four daughters, four
granddaughters (or nieces/nephews) and then the two witnesses and a judge. The paternal
variant is rare, but it does appear also in a small number of Arabic manuscripts (cf. VAN BINS-
BERGEN 1996a, 7, with n. 20). To make the kinship pattern patrilinear is thus not specifically a
Byzantine trait, though it does suit the conventions of Byzantine society.
219
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
D.
<¢> }
^ ®_ , > }=> =.
#
# <
,
< \
,
"=\
\#.
"\ %$, }#¯ <= }
.
}, $ = .
<¢> }
^ = ¤ Ê<. <=> #, $. #
+ ~$ =
, #$= #
# , @#$ Î û} ¾
_ }#> @
> .
_ %$,
}#
·=% > }#=%.
^.
<¢> }
^ = ¤ , }=,
¤ (
cod.)
}= $%. # $ > Á
% _, #\
¾_#¬ #< }.
#$= @=,
·%. $ = #\
.
.
$% Ê_ .
|}$
.
<¢> }
^
"$ @
}
#
\% #¤
#$ ®_, ¾#$<
. # + }#} =
< %\
=
<
<#
. Ê< (< cod., cf. Cod. Par. 2424, f. 166r; TAN-
NERY 1920, 365) _# (# cod.) @<
¬ <
. Ê
%
_ .
<
_# }¬
}#_
.
<¢> }
¯ ®_ Ê<.
\_ ¾#$< =
,
\ }=^. #
$ Ê_ $
# @=$
.
#¬.
220
The method of ramplion: Text 66
C. [The houses:]
On life; on pursuits; on siblings; on parents; (f. 284v) on children; on the sick;
on women; on death; on travel; on the empire; on hopes; on duress; on hap-
piness; on grief; on judgment.
D. [The planets:]
Saturn: its nature is cold and dry, bad, destructive, and deadly. It points to
former matters, things that took place before us, the deep and the dark; also
to the stinking and foul-smelling, to confining and thorny120 and acrid plants,
unjust and base people.
Jupiter: its nature is hot and moist, beneficent and good, righteous. It points
to pious people and ascetics; also to white stones and crystals, to churches
and well-formed beings and to all fruit which has a cover on its body; to
fragrant herbs, to an honorable and peaceable person and a law-observing121
and benevolent one.
Mars: its nature is hot and dry, destructive, burning, and ruinous. It points to
blazing furnaces and the shedding of blood, to war and distress and calami-
ties and murder; also to all red stones and to all herbs; to unjust and law-
breaking people and thieves. It is evil in every possible way.
(f. 285r)
Sun: its nature is hot and dry, but it is both beneficent and maleficent. It
points to kings and rulers and to gold and golden stones; also to the color of
gold and to beauty, to courage and love of riches.
Venus: its nature is cold and wet, beautiful and beneficent. It points to cheer-
fulness and music and eunuchs and women; also to sexual pleasures and
dice, and various colors.
Mercury: its nature fluctuates with the nature of the rest of the stars, except
that it tends to coldness and somewhat to dryness. It points to philosophers
and land-measurers, to mathematicians, tradesmen, sculptors, and historians;
also to quicksilver and to schooling122 and workshops; to wells and rivers
and winterbourne streams; to astronomers, diviners, teachers, poets, proph-
ets, and money-lovers.
120
The form <= seems to be a variant of the more common =, full of thorns.
Correspondent words which have survived into Modern Greek (<=, <=%
) attest that
the form in Gr 8 is not a scribal error.
121
The term , lawyer, is met with for instance in Doukas’ Historia Turco-
Byzantina 13, 5.
122
“Schooling” (for _# ) is my suggestion; in Gr 8, the word reads #$, i.e. bent or
crooked things.
221
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
E. (f. 285v)
F.
%
$# ¤ _ ’ ©# _ ¤ _
! ’ ©# " % # ¤ _ $ $#
~$%
$#
~$%
%
$#
%
! ø
$
Õ
" $#
# ø <
$ ¤ _ ¤ _
%
~$% $# ¤ _ $#
! $# " ¤ _ # $# $ ~$% $#
G.
• £>
$ _ ~$% ~; _ ~>
• •
• •
#%,
<
\%,
@
\%
¯ <}¯.
• • }
^ = ¤ Ê<. @
#. #$
^ ~
, ¿ ~ M . @
<
% # ¿
>
, ¯, #
<\ , û
_¤ û
#
> ##
\.
> + < : –
222
The method of ramplion: Text 66
Moon: its nature is cold and moist, though it also has a small share of
warmth; it is watchful and destructive. It points to sailors and soldiers, to
secretaries, captives, and gluttons.
E. (f. 285v)
[Table showing all possible geomantic figures, their relation to different
planets and whether they are good, bad, or intermediate:]
F. [Hemerological table:]
1st early 2nd late 3rd don’t use 4th all through 5th don’t use
th th th th
6 all through 7 early 8 don’t use 9 late 10th likewise
th th th th th
11 late 12 likewise 13 early 14 late 15 early
th th th th th
16 third hour 17 late 18 third hour 19 don’t use 20 don’t use
21st early 22nd likewise 23rd late 24th don’t use 25th late
th th th th th
26 late 27 don’t use 28 late 29 likewise 30 late
223
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
To illustrate the rest of the procedure, let us suppose that the diviner is now
done striking the ground and has paired together all the marks, ending up,
e.g., with the following four figures:
1 2 3 4
• • • • •
• • • • • • •
• • • • • •
• • • • •
Whereas the first four figures in a chart are randomized, the subsequent
eleven are based upon these four. The results can be seen in the chart on the
next page (it should be read from right to left, just as one would read Arabic
script):
123
Instead of sixteen lines, we have in Text 66 sixteen circles of marks, arranged in fours.
224
The method of ramplion: Text 66
124
Sometimes a sixteenth figure is created, by combining the dots of figure No. 1 with figure
No. 15. This is only used in cases of uncertain judgment, when the results of the chart are
ambiguous.
225
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
section included. Text 66 ends rather abruptly, with only one geomantic
figure out of sixteen presented at the end of the last verso page of U12. This
could mean that a “handbook” was in fact copied in full by Theodoros but
that one or two quires went missing afterwards. Another alternative would
be that Theodoros was only superficially interested in the art, and chose to
keep from the model manuscript just what happened to fit into the quire he
had at hand.
125
Ptol. Tetr. 1. 20.
226
The method of ramplion: Text 66
126
These mundane houses are sometimes called “Places,” in order to distinguish them from
the zodiacal houses (BARTON 1994, 98). I keep the term “house” here, since that is the term
we meet in Byzantine geomantic texts (¿, ).
127
Ptol. Tetr. 1. 5. 1. (transl. Robbins). An application of this view of the fluids was touched
upon in the discussion of Text 29, where the embryo was imagined to be concocted and
shaped by the heat and moisture in the womb, while too much dryness at the end of the shap-
ing process could be hazardous for the perfection of the eyes.
227
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
128
Ptol. Tetr. 1. 9.
129
Ptol. Tetr. 1. 11. In Chinese tradition, the cardinal points are at the heart of the geomantic
interpretation; one even talks about a “compass school” (BRASWELL-MEANS 1990, 133f.).
Braswell-Means contends that this stands in contrast to the Arabic-Western tradition with its
focus on time rather than on space. However, if we compare the use of Feng Shui to the
Malagasy geomantic tradition, the East Asian geomancy does not turn out to be so unique.
The geomantic procedure is in both cases employed to make spatial considerations, finding
the right geographic locale, erecting houses and designing interiors in a way that ensures that
one stay in balance with the elements or with the gods. On the spatial use of geomancy in
Madagascar, see VÉRIN & RAJAONARIMANANA 1991, 56–59. Time and space—the planets are
clearly the guardians of both. Similarly, even if Byzantine geomancy is used mainly to find
the right moment for acting in some way or other, the texts do refer to the compass directions:
we see this also at the end of Text 66, where the geomantic figure is described as an “Eastern”
figure (cf. p. 222f.).
130
Compare the more familiar phenomenon of solar nodes, the positions where the ecliptic
intersects the equator. The nodal points are then referred to as the vernal and the autumnal
equinoctial points.
131
BERRY 1961, 48.
228
The method of ramplion: Text 66
229
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
seen new editions ever since.137 The Assyrian hemerologies are often seen as
precursors to the account of lucky and unlucky days which Hesiod included
in his Works and Days, and to the Orphic Ephemerides.138 Another trail,
however, brings us all the way back to Pharaonic Egypt, where calendars of
good and bad days have been transmitted in papyri at least from the Middle
Kingdom and onwards.139 In Egyptian papyri one can find precisely the divi-
sion of the day into three parts, each part either good or bad, that are extant
also in Byzantine hemerologies. The reason why a whole day or just part of
the day had a certain influence is not quite clear. According to Theodor
Hopfner it was connected to the activities of Egyptian gods on specific days
of the year: the feast day of Râ, the day of the fight between Hor and Seth, et
cetera.140 In Papyrus Sallier IV (BM 10184; ca. 1300 BCE), one can read that
the fifteenth day of the month Phaophi is good in the morning and mid-day
but bad in the afternoon: “Verlass deinen Aufenthaltsort nicht in der
Abendzeit, denn die Schlange Uatch, der Sohn des Gottes, geht aus um diese
Zeit und Unglück folgt ihr,” as Hopfner translates. On the other hand, the
fourth of the same month is put up as “bad, good, good,” but the prescrip-
tions are simply “do not leave your house at all on this day; a person born on
this day will die this day from severe illness.” That the moon, and perhaps
other planets, were considered influential may be concluded from the title of
some of the records: }%
\ }
\, lit and unlit days.
Hemerologies were consulted for guidance on
_$, “beginnings,” i.e.
when to undertake a certain activity (travel, marriage, business deals, medi-
cal treatment), and also for birth prognoses, to determine the character and
future of a child born on a certain day.141 Not least, they were crucial for
137
The same idea was even applied to millennia: Patriarch Gennadios (George Scholarios)
referred to his own time as “the millennium of the Moon” (
¤ ¡"× _#Ñ
Ô
[...]
_
Ó ÷ #ò). It followed upon the millennia of all the other planets and
revealed its Selenic nature through the brevity of human lives, the inconstancy of fate and the
political vicissitudes taking place just then (PETIT 1930, 3, 287).
138
On Hesiod, see WEST 1978, 348, with further references, and WEINSTOCK 1949, 57f. For
the Orphic fragments on day prognostics, see KERN 1922, 274–279.
139
Theodor Hopfner refers to the “Kahunpapyrus,” BM Kahun XVII,3 (HOPFNER 1921, 229);
cf. GRIFFITHS & PETRIE 1898, 62 with Pl. 25. Lana Troy gives an overview of the religious
contents and the cultural setting of some of these calendars; the Kahun papyrus, though, is
misnumbered in this article (TROY 1989).
140
HOPFNER 1921, 229.
141
Stefan Weinstock gives an example from Cod. Bodl. Cromwellianus 12, p. 402, where the
text gives advice on “medical treatment, horse-breeding, travel, marriage, slave-trade, hair-
and nail-cutting, clothing, agriculture, etc.,” in addition to information on the planetary ruler
of the day, and the horoscope for a boy or girl born on that day (WEINSTOCK 1949, 49 and 55).
Often enough, hemerologies are more specialized and focus on just one thing, like dream
interpretation, or the right time for blood-letting; cf. Erik Widstrand and Emanuel Svenberg,
who have discussed the Latin tradition of “Kollektivlunaria” and “Speziallunaria” (SVENBERG
1936 [in Swedish]; WIDSTRAND 1942; SVENBERG 1963). See also László Chardonnens’ sug-
gestions of how to denote different lunar prognostic genres (CHARDONNENS 2007, 393–398).
Chardonnens is mainly working with Latin and Anglo-Saxon texts, but his discussion is wor-
thy of note also for the Greek tradition.
230
The method of ramplion: Text 66
Seek out the day and time on which the oracle works best. You should in-
quire on the following weekdays: the third—day of Ares, the fifth—day of
Zeus, the sabbath—day of Kronos, and the Lord’s day which is the day of the
Sun, and in no wise on other days. Use the third hour of the Lord’s day, the
sixth of the sabbath, the fifth hour of the fifth day and the third hour of the
third day, because on these days and times the answers given are more reli-
able. And before you consider the inquiry, consider if the time is right to de-
vote yourself to the oracle, as the thirteenth [day] is the most important […].
Further, you should consider the days of the Moon [or month], the way they
are set forth here.144
142
Cf. the title
[] {, in the papyrus BM gr. 121 (3rd c. CE), which clearly
spells out the use of the account of days in connection to divination, explaining when it is
propitious or not to seek out the hidden knowledge (PREISENDANZ 1974, II, 6f.; HOPFNER
1921, 228).
143
The “Lots of Astrampsychos” is an oracle book stemming from the 2nd or 3rd c. CE. The
book, which contained 92 questions and around ten possible answers to each of the questions,
became widely spread in both pagan and Christian versions, and is extant in 3rd–5th c. papyri
and in medieval manuscripts from the 13th–15th c.
144
STEWART 2001, 3; ecdosis altera, from Erlang. 89; Laur. 28, 14; Marc. 324 (my transla-
tion). For an introduction to and an English translation of the main text of the Sortes Astram-
psychi, see HANSEN 1991, 287–324.
231
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
145
With the African slave trade it also proliferated in the West Indies and South America.
Furthermore, it is indeed still practiced in many parts of the world, for instance in parts of
Africa, on Madagascar, and in Chinese-speaking areas, where the art has merged with the
long-revered art of Feng Shui—nowadays popular also in the West (on geomancy in Africa,
see for example FAHD 1966 (covers Arabic divination at large); MAUPOIL 1988 (Benin);
JAULIN 1966, 147–163 (Sudan, Tchad, Benin); VAN BINSBERGEN 1996b (Botswana with sur-
rounding areas); VÉRIN & RAJAONARIMANANA 1991 (Madagascar); on Chinese geomancy, see
BRASWELL-MEANS 1990.
146
See for example JAULIN 1966, 13–16; FAHD 1966, 196–204; SAVAGE-SMITH & SMITH
1980, 1; Carra de Vaux is more guarded, only stating that the origin of Arab divination “reste
chez les Orienteaux, purement légendaire” (in: TANNERY 1920, 303). To call geomancy “Is-
lamic,” is perhaps a way to avoid falling into an ethnic pitfall, but even the religious label is
232
The method of ramplion: Text 66
Î , Ú ~ #Ë
> ·_
^
<
Ê
%$ %,
according to Codex Scorialensis II 14.148 In Parisinus graecus 2419 (cop-
ied by George Meidiates in 1462) the reference is even more detailed: ¹
%
< ® # ~ > °^ ·
¯ "#
¤
\_ @
¯ <#
$
}.149 It is not unlikely that
this “Selmân” points at Salm n, the chief librarian of Caliph al-Ma’mn
(813–833). Salm n was the leader of the ‘Abb sid delegation to Constantin-
ople, sent to acquire Greek books from the Byzantine court of Emperor Leo
problematic. As a reminder, we may recall what it looked like at the Abbasid court in the late
8th c.: the chief astrologers were Theophilos of Edessa, a Greek from Syria (Nestorian Chris-
tian), Ab-Sahl ibn-Nawbakht, a Persian (convert from the Zoroastrian religion), M š ’all h,
a Jew from Basra (Jewish name Manasse), and Ab-Ma‘šar, a Persian (born in Balkh, now
Afghanistan); GUTAS 1998, 108f. These astrologers all played a part in Arabic/Islamic cultural
history, but it was their linguistic and cultural otherness that made them useful for the caliph-
ate. Likewise, for the origin as well as the spreading of geomancy, the blend of several cul-
tural traditions was probably more important than a precise ethnic or religious affiliation.
147
Cf. Suda, s.v. } Ô (Omicron 654); DELATTE & DELATTE 1936, 578–580 and 585.
148
Cod. Scor. II 14, f. 47v (14th–15th c., according to Gregorio de Andrés’ catalog); the
manuscript is written by a single scribe, and readers’ notes from 1430 onwards imply a com-
position date at least prior to that (ANDRÉS 1967, 41f.). The prooemium is preserved also in
Cod. Flor. Laur. 86,14, f. 47v (15th c.).
149
Cod. Par. gr. 2419, f. 228r (DELATTE & DELATTE 1936, 597). The Latin treatise, which
Niccolò used, seems to have been the one produced by Hugh of Santalla. In her study of
Hugh’s text, Therèse Charmasson makes no mention of a person named Selmân or Salm n
(CHARMASSON 1980). This piece of information ought therefore to have come from the scat-
tered Greek treatises which Niccolò used for his compilation. Cf. Cod. Scor. II 14, f. 46r:
#
¤
^ #
$
\_, @ #
$ ’
^ @
º%ǯ #\
, _#$ ÷
> $,
_=¬ @
·##% "$"#% @#
¿ (sic) < Ê_.
233
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
the Armenian.150 These books were then translated into Arabic in Baghdad.
We know that astrological works were a top priority and in great demand at
the ‘Abb sid court,151 so perhaps geomancy was part of the parcel already at
that time. This suggestion would be interesting to follow up as a potential
missing link to an early use of geomancy, which then got a wider audience in
its Arabic version, only to end up being translated once again into Greek in
Otranto, in the early thirteenth century.152
Wim van Binsbergen has suggested a reevaluation of the origins of geo-
mancy. Given that most manuscripts—including the Arabic which are usu-
ally taken to be precursors to all Western European and Byzantine geomantic
texts—present a very heterogeneous collection of names of the geomantic
figures, names which apply to different semantic categories such as physical
appearance, emotions, colors, astronomic terms, et cetera, van Binsbergen
argues that the text in Parisinus graecus 2419 could actually represent an
earlier, uncorrupted stage of the geomantic art.153 In this manuscript the
names of the figures can all be interpreted in astrological terms, thus provid-
ing a comprehensive system of nomenclature.154 Although van Binsbergen’s
proposal certainly does not prove an ancient Greek or Byzantine origin of
the art of geomancy, it does encourage us to look beyond the apparent “fact”
of a tenth-century Arabic or Islamic invention of geomancy. Another intrigu-
ing idea offered by van Binsbergen is the possibility that the geomantic text
in Codex Harleianus 5596 could convey a form of “proto-geomancy.” He
150
WELLISCH 1986, 21; cf. al-Nadãm Fihrist, 7. 1 (DODGE 1970, 584).
151
GUTAS 1998, 108–110.
152
Niccolò of Otranto, a bilingual Greek from southern Italy, was the official translator in the
church union discussions in Constantinople in 1205–07, and again in 1214. Under the name of
Nectarius he became the abbot of the monastery of S. Niccolò di Casole 1220–35, and the
many Byzantine books which he brought back to Italy became part of the monastic library.
This monastery remained an important center for the diffusion of Greek culture in southern
Italy for centuries, until its destruction by the Turks in 1480 (SETTON 1959, 14f. and 32f.).
153
VAN BINSBERGEN 1996a, 40–46.
154
The opposite case, that the author/scribe of Par. gr. 2419 could have tidied up the ar-
rangement secondarily, seems less plausible. Even though some of the Arabic names can be
shown to be corruptions of precisely those astronomic notions which present themselves in
the Paris manuscript, a translator from Arabic to Greek would hardly have recognized the
source concepts—the gap is too wide for that. Cf. also van Binsbergen’s examples of possible
textual distortions in the Arabic tradition due to orthographic similarities (VAN BINSBERGEN
1996a, 48). On the other hand, a Latin geomantic manuscript reminds us not to take too
lightly the ability of educated scribes to “ameliorate” a text: to the text of Br. Mus. Sloane
3487 (15th c.) the scribe added that he had reduced it to an astronomical basis, “Explicit ag-
gregatorium sive compilatorium geomancie editum per Ro. Scriptoris … quantum possibile
est ad astronomiam redacta” (cited from THORNDIKE 1934, vol. 4, 143). This Roland Scrip-
toris of Lisbon went about similarly with a chiromantic text, according to Thorndike: he
associated the parts of the hands with the planets, explained how to examine the hands of a
person to determine under what planet he or she was born, etc. (for details of manuscripts, see
THORNDIKE, loc. cit., n. 41). It may very well be that the case of Par. gr. 2419 is quite another
than the one of Roland “astrologizing” his texts—I am just stressing that further investigations
are needed to confirm van Binsbergen’s theory and eliminate other possibilities. On Roland
Scriptoris’ geomancy, see also CHARMASSON 1980, 177–193.
234
The method of ramplion: Text 66
155
VAN BINSBERGEN 1996a, 50–54. For the Greek text of Par. gr. 2419, see DELATTE & DE-
th v v
LATTE 1936, 591–658; the excerpt from Cod. Harl. 5596 (15 c.), ff. 3 –5 , was edited by
Armand Delatte (DELATTE 1927, 392–396). To render the planets a more important place than
the zodiacal signs was typical of Greco-Roman astrology in its earlier stages (BOUCHÉ-
LECLERCQ 1879, I, 225f.).
156
VAN BINSBERGEN 1996a, 54. Representations of the Chinese trigrams are extant from at
least the 7th c. BCE, and the claim of contemporary Chinese geomancy is that the art descends
from the Qin dynasty, in the 3rd c. BCE (BRASWELL-MEANS 1990, 132f.). The Pa Kua are
associated with elements, seasons, times of day, compass directions, animals, etc., but not
with planets and astrological concepts, as far as I understand. To follow this East Asian geo-
mantic trail goes far beyond my scope here, but it is worth emphasizing that there has been a
considerable exchange of ideas between China and the West at many points in history,
through India and Persia and along the Silk Road. As for astrology, China has its own three-
thousand-year-long tradition of stargazing, but an import of Arabic astronomers/astrologers
has also taken place, for instance during the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368); STEELE 2000, 161.
Notwithstanding a possible connection of Eastern and Western geomantic trigrams and tetra-
grams, the astrological framework in the Arabic and Western geomantic texts is definitely
Ptolemaic, not Eastern. Chinese astrology is, for example, polar- and equator-oriented rather
than planetary and ecliptic (NEEDHAM 1974, 67).
157
VAN BINSBERGEN 1996a, 13.
158
Cf. several of the incipits in CHARMASSON 1980, 295–303.
159
Par. gr. 2419, f. 241v:
\ =
^ º#$ ¦ #" >
> ""#$ $
_; CCAG 8:1, p. 53; the note is extant also in Vat. Pal. 312, f. 235 (15th–16th c.).
235
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
160
John Kananos, De Constantinopoli oppugnata 248–252.
161
One must, however, bear in mind that this particular “patriarch” is depicted as depraved;
John Kananos describes him as well-born, < ¬, a descendant of Prophet Muhammad, but
also as a callous person, ambitious, haughty, and violent, even as having abducted and raped a
daughter of Murad II (ibid. 199–209).
162
Ibid., 530–535: `# < < °
Ñ_
Ô%, ©
×#
@×
’ _#%
=¯, Ú Á }
¯ £ Ó
> >
^ °%Ñ =
@®}}×
Ô
, ©
>
> ¯
¤ Ò
Ô
236
The method of ramplion: Text 66
whole argument of Kananos is that the Persian prophecy was valid and could
be reverted only through the power of God. There is no patent disapproval in
the text concerning the use of either astrology or geomancy; Mersaïtes’ self-
ish and cruel scheming and his blasphemic utterances were probably more
serious offenses in the eyes of John Kananos (“Blind Romans, where is your
God now? Where is your Christ? Where are the saints who should help
you?”).163
All things considered, the reference to geomancy in John Kananos’ narra-
tive must not be given too much weight in a discussion of geomantic divina-
tion. It gives one person’s perspective, and that in a text which is supposed
to denigrate the enemy and eulogize the Byzantine victory as supported by
the Virgin. Nevertheless, it is a contemporary observation and therefore in-
teresting for the investigation of late and post-Palaiologan geomantic texts.
To get a more solid comprehension of the place of geomancy in Byzantine
culture one would certainly need to expand the investigation to a larger
number of texts. If someone were to undertake that chore, my advice would
be to take into account also the location of these texts in the books where
they are found. With a firm grip on the codicological structure and the con-
text of books, their place of origin, scribes, owners and readers, there is a
good chance to learn more about the cultural background and importance of
a phenomenon like geomancy. To link that kind of study to an inquiry into
the Arabic and possibly Persian geomantic traditions would moreover give
us the broader perspective, attainable through interdisciplinary collaboration.
163
Ibid., 271ff.
237
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
164
The first Greek grammar to appear in print was Constantine Lascaris’ Græcæ Institutiones,
in 1476; three others, by Manuel Chrysoloras, Demetrios Chalkokandyles and Theodore
Gazes, followed suite in the next twenty years (STEVENS 1950, 242). Being entirely in Greek,
Lascaris’ book was ill suited for beginners, who must have needed initial instruction from a
Greek teacher. We may note, though, that just at the end of his book there is a Latin version of
the Lord’s prayer with an interlinear Greek translation: this prayer is presented among the
bilingual texts in Gr 8 as well. Lascaris includes among his reading selections the “Psalmus
quinquagesimus, cui principium, Miserere mei domine”; this, too, is part of the Greek-Latin
material in Gr 8. I am not suggesting a direct link between Lascaris’ work and the texts in
Gr 8, but rather pointing out the standard procedure and the conventional choice of texts,
known to all, and therefore practical in language learning. Several early Greek printers pro-
duced “student versions” of texts, presenting the Greek text together with interlinear Latin.
Paul Botley shows how fables, biblical, and liturgical texts, seem to have been the preferred
choice for these language primary readers (BOTLEY 2002).
165
In his introduction of Byzantine elementary schooling, Herbert Hunger mentions that letter
openings are found among the practice texts in manuscripts: “Sehr häufig übte man (fiktive)
Briefanfänge und Teile von Urkundentexten” (HUNGER 1989, 78). This pedagogical pattern
may have influenced our scribe Theodoros to add the letter headings to his language exer-
cises. It is fairly obvious, though, that the texts in Gr 8 are in no way elementary: the end user
of these pages was an adult rather than a school boy.
166
Ps.-Demetrios, !
" "
"
and Ps.-Libanios/Ps.-Proklos, ("
" {
" )*.
See, for example, RABE 1909; BRINKMANN 1909; SYKUTRIS 1928/29.
167
Cf. the introduction to Weichert’s edition (1910).
238
How to address the Pope (and a friend): Text 81
168
The %+ "
" ! was first published in London 1625 by Nicodemus Metaxas
(printer William Stansby); cf. ROBERTS 1967, 16f. and 40f. On a text in Cod. Vat. Barb. gr.
71.3 possibly being the model for Korydalleus’ work, see RABE 1909, 288.
169
FERRARI 1913, 57–62.
170
FERRARI 1913, 126. One example of how the expression ~ > "# ^ can point to
someone outside of the Komnenian family is the reference to Emperor Andronikos Gidos in
John Lazaropoulos’ Synopsis (BHG 612–613); see the commentary on Lazaropoulos’ Synop-
sis line 1206, ROSENQVIST 1996, 439; MACRIDES 1979.
171
The Ekthesis Nea has seen other editions, prior to Darrouzès’, though based on just one or
a few manuscripts. One of these editions is accessible in PG 107 398–418; cf. DARROUZÈS
1969, 5, n. 2.
239
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
takion was directed to the voivode Stefan and his wife Maria; in another
manuscript a model letter from Niccolò Gattilusio to the emperor Alexios of
Trebizond was recorded (and also criticized in a marginal note, because Gat-
tilusio actually died before Alexios IV began his reign, and “how could the
redactor be so ignorant, so as not to know this”).172
What information does a text like Ekthesis Nea provide? We can, for ex-
ample, learn “how the Patriarch of Constantinople nowadays writes to the
Pope” and to other ecclesiastical and political officials (`= \, ©%
^ <} ~ %
# %
_
Î ø,
#
_ _ , ¤
#$
,
_ Ç=). From the wording ¨" – © , in
the headline cited, it appears that the compiler reworked an earlier formu-
lary; thus there is not only textual instability after 1386, but the compilation
Ekthesis Nea is itself an adjusted version. The element of practical useful-
ness of these collections is imperative: since titulary etiquette and bureau-
cratic order changed in the course of time, the chancery manuals had to be
up to date. This ongoing process of adaptation is clear from other, even more
modified versions of the work than the ones Darrouzès used for his edition.
Shortened or expanded, with new offices and names added, they sometimes
give the impression of not being chancery manuals anymore, but an aid for
anyone who would need to contact authorities, teachers, or even friends and
family.173 Darrouzès refers to a couple of such recensions nouvelles, more or
less remote, or even independent, versions of address collections, in Vati-
canus 573 and Sinaiticus 1609.174 Hugo Rabe mentioned yet a few manu-
scripts, like Oxford Bodleian misc. 242, Neapolitanus Borb. III.B.27, and
Escorialensis ª.IV.1.175 The latter manuscript is of particular interest to us,
172
See DARROUZÈS 1969, § 79, app. crit. Alexios IV of Trebizond was actually co-emperor
(
) already in 1395, so the letter may still be a “credible” model even though he did
not become sole emperor until 1417.
173
The basic form of the Ekthesis Nea is transmitted in prints from the 18th c. onwards under
the name of
"
="
(RABE 1908, 286). The third part of this epistolary starts with:
\ =
$
#%
> #
%¨ ©% <} ~ # %
_,
#. The reference to Kodinos is extant in a couple of manuscripts as well, one of
them in Darmarios’ hand. Jean Verpeaux accused Darmarios of having planted this informa-
tion, perhaps to make it sell better with an author’s name attached (VERPEAUX 1976, 63–65).
Though not out of character for Darmarios, in this instance it is more likely that he actually
used a model manuscript related to the Hierosolymitanus Metochion S. Sepulcri 46, where
Ekthesis Nea precedes some episcopal acts and the Treatise of Dignities and Offices by
Pseudo-Kodinos; Darmarios may have seen the three works as one combined text. Cf. DAR-
ROUZÈS 1969, 6.
174
Darrouzès explicitly shows how the redactor of Vat. gr. 573 rearranged the material of
Ekthesis Nea because it had become anachronistic and not attuned to the reality of his own
era, the early 15th c. (1969, 23f.). Conversely, this implies that there were scribes who chose
not to adjust the material, whether because of mere mechanical copying or because they pre-
ferred to freeze a moment in time when the empire still stood intact, when the administration
had not yet been handed over to another ruler.
175
RABE 1909, 285f.
240
How to address the Pope (and a friend): Text 81
since the formulas in that text differ only slightly from the ones in Gr 8,
apart from the fact that no Latin version was included there. Variant readings
from Escorialensis ª.IV.1 (siglum E) are indicated in the critical apparatus
to Text 81, and a brief discussion of the manuscript and its relation to Gr 8 is
given in the “Addendum,” at the end of this chapter.
An intriguing aspect of formularies like these is that, besides giving in-
formation on the usage of titles and courtesy phrases at a certain time, they
occasionally indicate the persons for whom or the circumstances in which
the formulas were—or could have been—used. By combining names, initials
of names, places or certain offices as far as these have left traces in the par-
ticular text or copy, this may also help us figure out a date for the composi-
tion of the manual, or of a specific version of it.176 This is what we will ven-
ture to do with Text 81. The listing begins with religious dignitaries, ranging
from pope to monk. Subsequently civil offices follow, from king to learned
nobles, and at the end a few entries are given on how to greet a friend. In
some cases the formula includes a name, in others just an initial, and in yet
others there are no clues whatsoever. Likewise, not all of the persons men-
tioned have made an imprint on posterity: we will never know who the “be-
loved son Antonius” is, unless we find out who actually compiled the formu-
lary. I have chosen to present Text 81 the way it is written in the manuscript:
the Greek above the Latin text. Subsequently, I will discuss the information
it contains and its implications for our assessment of the text in relation to
Gr 8 as a whole book.
176
For the use of existing persons or correspondences in designing a guide to letter-writing,
cf. ÖBERG 1997, 12–19.
241
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
1
Î ø
Papae
Î *<%
´ %
´ =\
Õ
Î ø
Sanctissimo ac beatissimo domino nostro papae
5 #Õ
Cardinali
Î %
´ @ ²
Î
Õ $´
$
#
¯ *<$
Reverendissimo in Christo patri et domino domino B. tituli sanctae
"$ @´ #Õ =\
Õ @Î @_%
´ ý @
´
10 Sabinae episcopo cardinali domino meo
Î %
´ @ ²
Î
Õ $´ . @´
Reverendissimo in Christo patri et domino domino B. episcopo
#$´ #Î =\
Õ @Î @
´
Cardinali Thusculano domino meo singulari
15 @´
Episcopo
Î $´ @ ²
Î
Õ $´ £$ @´
Reverendo in Christo patri et domino domino P. papiensi episcopo
=\
Õ @Î @
´
20 domino meo singulari
<\´
Abbati
Î $´ @ ²
Î
$´ |=$´ =<\´
¯ À<$ °$
Reverendo in Christo patri domino Athanasio abbati Sanctae Mariae
25
£
\%
%
´
de Patiro patri colendissimo
1
Î ø]
#> #
¯ *<$ "#$
Ã< #> }\% E
3 supra =\
Õ add.
Õ supra lin. U
Î] E 5 #Õ deest E
7
$
#]
\
# E 9 ý] E 17 $´] %
´ E 23 $´] @ %
´ E
25 £
\% deest E
%
´ quasi titulum textus sequentis transposuit E
242
How to address the Pope (and a friend): Text 81
_Î
Monacho
35
Î ~$´ $´ °´
%
^ À<$ $
@
Î $´
Religioso viro domino Marco ordinis Sancti Benedicti in Monte
$%
Cassino patri observando
"#
40 Regi
³ Á "#³ <#
|<% ¡
\ #$
¡¯
Sacrae regiae Maiestati Aragonum utriusque Siciliae et cetera
$
Principi
45
Î }
´ =\
Õ $´
$<
¡¯ =\
Õ
Illustrissimo domino domino M. Tarenti principi et cetera, domino
@Î @
´
meo singulari
$
50 Duci
Î }
´ =\
Õ $´ "$
¡¯ =\
Õ
Illustrissimo domino domino G. Sabaudiae duci et cetera domino
@Î @
´
meo singulari
243
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
55 _$%
Marchioni
Î } Ê®#Î =\
Õ $´ µ %\##´ _$%
\ =\
Õ
Illustri et excelso domino domino Leonello marchioni Estensi domino
@Î @
´
60 meo singulari
Comiti
Î Ê®#%
´ =\
Õ $´ ¶%
=\
Õ @Î
Excellentissimo domino domino H. Fundorum comiti domino meo
65 @
´
singulari
"
Militi et barono
Î <# } $´
@ µ...
70 Magnifico et excellenti domino Sansoneto de Lusi... militi
#´
Jurisconsulto
Î "#\
´ @
´ #´ $´ |
$´
@ £
"$
Spectabili et eximio legum doctori domino Antonio de Padua
75 @
¬
rtium doctori
Î @
´
_
¯ #´ $´
@ £ $
õximio artium et medicinae doctori domino Matheo Perusino
57 Ê®#Î] Ê®#
´ E =\
Õ deest E µ %\##´ _$%
\] µ %¬#´
__$% (sic)
\ E 61
] Õ E 63 ¶%]
E
=\
Õ] Õ
=\
Õ E 67 "] " E 69 µ...] µ$ E
ante $´
transposuit E 77 £ $] £ $ E 79 }Î #<$´ quasi partem textus
prioris transposuit E 81 #<%
´] <%
% E
244
How to address the Pope (and a friend): Text 81
Î }%
´ }#=%
´ $´ £\
´ }$#´ $
´
Prudentissimo et humanissimo viro domino Petro amico singulari
Î }#=%
´
´ $´ |
%$´ }$#´ =
´
90 Perhumano et eruditissimo viro domino Antonio amico carissimo
Î
%
´ }%
´ $´
Modestissimo et prudentissimo viro domino
Î %
´ <
´ $´
Strenuo et generoso viro domino
95
Î < #
´ $´
Nobili et praeclaro viro domino
Î =
´ #}Î $´
Carissimo fratri domino
Î Ð<\´ ÁÎ |
%$´
100 Carissimo filio Antonio
Î <
Î = Î ÁÎ
Dilecto et caro filio
105
Î < @
$´ $´
Nobili et honorato viro domino
83 #$´] #
´ E 85 £#´ "\##´] #´ "\#´ E 87 $
´] $
´
Î E
89
´]
´ E 97 #}Î] E 99 ex <
Î in Ð<\´
correxit U ÁÎ |
%$´] = Î ÁÎ $´ E 101 lin. deest E 103 _¬]
_¬ U lin. deest E 105 post lin. 105 in E sequitur initium novae epistulae, vide p. 262.
245
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
Ecclesiastical offices
The office of cardinal is given two entries in our formulary, both of which
undoubtedly point to Cardinal Bessarion of Trebizond (1403–1472). Bes-
sarion, bishop of Nicaea at the time, played a leading role as proponent of a
church union at the Council of Ferrara-Florence. After the Council, Pope
Eugenius IV wanted him to continue as a mediator between the Byzantine
and the Roman churches, and to that end ordained him cardinal in December
1439. Bessarion was appointed Episcopus Cardinalis Sabinensis by Pope
Nicholas V, in March 1449, and a few weeks later was transferred to the
diocese of Tusculum. In the early fifteenth century, Enrico Minutolo was the
bishop of the corresponding sees,177 and according to Ferdinando Ughelli,
there was yet another fifteenth-century bishop who held the same two chairs:
Latino Orsini.178 Nevertheless, in Text 81 the initial “B.” decides the issue to
Bessarion’s advantage. Bessarion’s distinction in the circle of humanist
scholars at Mistra in the 1430s and in Italy later on, his involvement in the
Church Council, and his undisputed importance for supporting Greek immi-
grant intellectuals, would furthermore make him the most probable cardinal
to appear in a Latin-Greek titulary collection.
The bishop of Pavia, whose name starts with the letter “P,” may refer to
Petrus Grassius de Castro Novo, who held the episcopal chair from 1402
until his death in 1426. The wording of our text can be compared to his epi-
taphium in the sacellum of Saint Martha, which begins in the following way:
177
Cardinal Enrico Minutolo held the see of Tusculum/Frascati 1403–1409 and the see of
Sabina 1409–1417 (GAMS 1873, xx and xiv).
178
Cf. UGHELLI 1644, 208 and 210. Ughelli’s years of nomination for Latino Orsini are 1468
and 1472 (in Gams, the latter date is 1473). Eubel, on the other hand, does not bear out Latino
Orsini’s presence as Bishop of Sabina, mentioning only Tusculum (EUBEL 1914, 11). Giorda-
no Orsini—member of the same family of Roman nobles—did hold the Sabinian chair prior
to Bessarion (1431–1439), but he was never bishop of Tusculum. What seems clear is that in
1465 Latino Orsini was nominated bishop of the suburbicarian diocese of Albano, in 1468 he
became bishop of Tusculum, and in 1472 archbishop of Taranto (GAMS 1873, 856).
179
Cf. UGHELLI 1644, 37*. In Ughelli’s text a comma was put in the wrong place: “de Castro
Novo Dei, & Apostolicae Sedis.”
180
See GAMS 1886, 801 (Piccopasio, bishop of Pavia) and 796 (Picolpasso, bishop of Milan).
246
How to address the Pope (and a friend): Text 81
181
BOND 1996, 145. Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464) was sent to Constantinople as the pope’s
ambassador in 1437 to negotiate the reunification of the churches. His friendship with Pizol-
passo “found nourishment in their mutual preoccupation with theological and philosophical
problems, but most of all, so it seems, in their love of books” (BIECHLER 1975, 16).
182
GARNSEY 2007, 44f.
183
On Pizolpasso’s time in Pavia, Basel and Milan and his contact with the humanist move-
ment, see PAREDI 1961, 25–65. Portions of Pizolpasso’s correspondence are found in PAREDI
1961, 193–237; FUBINI 1966, 354–370; and SOTTILI 1966, 56–63.
184
The “del Patire” (del padre,
^
) derives from the founder, Bartholomew, “father”
of the monastery (cf. BHG 235). The “Norman” who promoted the monastery was Christo-
doulos, an admiral of Greek descent who held a distinguished position at the Norman court of
Sicily (he was also conferred the honorary title of protonobelissimos by Emperor Alexios I).
Cf. BATIFFOL 1891, 4f.; VON FALKENHAUSEN 1985.
185
In BATIFFOL 1891, 7, the author mentions an icon, now belonging to the Church of S.
Pietro in Corigliano, which was commissioned by Athanasios. On the lower part of the frame
it has the following inscription: |= ¶#$ ²# # _$
³
^ ^ %
$
_\% _.
186
According to Joseph Gill, the monk Athanasios was ordered by the Emperor to collect
appropriate codices at Athos and bring them back to the Council as support for the Greek
position in theological controversies (GILL 1959, 76).
247
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
187
On Chalkeopylos’ scribal activity, cf. Repertorium II, 7 with further literature. The Cod.
Ravenn. Bibl. Class. 210, which he probably copied for Bessarion, contains Aristotle’s Nico-
machean Ethics and Eudemian Ethics, and some poems from the Planudean Anthology. His
translations of two homilies of Basil the Great and of Lucian’s De saltatione are extant (the
latter work, in Cod. Par. gr. 3013, is dedicated to Antonello Petrucci, secretary of King Ferdi-
nand of Sicily; in Repertorium II, 7 it is pointed out that the scribe of the Paris manuscript is
not Athanasios but John Chalkeopylos, but the translation and dedication would still be Atha-
nasios’ own. The dedicatory text is reproduced in LAURENT & GUILLOU 1960, 228–231). See
further MANOUSSACAS 1973.
188
Cf. GAMS 1873, 883; EUBEL 1914, 159.
189
Subsequently, Neilos (cf. BHG 1370) founded his own monastery, the Basilian abbey of
Grottaferrata which became renowned for its scriptorium. On the relations between Monte-
cassino and Byzantium, see BLOCH 1986.
190
On the illuminative art, see TOUBERT 1971; BELTING 1974. Francis Newton, in his impres-
sive treatment of the Montecassino scriptorium and library, makes no mention of Byzantine
influence (NEWTON 1999).
248
How to address the Pope (and a friend): Text 81
Secular offices
Among the secular offices the prime one is the king or "# . This is also
the first one mentioned in Text 81, more specifically, the king “of Aragon
and the two Sicilies.” The background of this title reaches back to the revolt
called the Sicilian Vespers. In the war that followed, Peter III of Aragon
made common cause with Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos against Char-
les I of Anjou, and in the peace of 1302 the Norman kingdom of Sicily was
divided into two.191 The island of Sicily came under Aragonese rule while the
mainland of Southern Italy remained under the Angevins. This situation
lasted until 1442, when Alfonso V of Aragon defeated René of Anjou and
proclaimed himself Rex Sicilie citra et ultra farum.192 After Alfonso’s death
in 1458, the supremacy was divided between his son, Ferdinand I, king of
Naples,193 and the younger brother of Alfonso, Giovanni II, king of Aragon
and Sicily. The two Sicilies were united once more in 1503, and stayed so
more or less continuously until 1860. Alfonso V was one of the few Western
leaders who advocated a counter-attack on the Turks on behalf of the col-
lapsing Byzantine empire (even if his main interest in this was the Catalan
trade in the Levant). His military involvement in Albania did encourage
other Balkan princes to turn to him in the hope of refuge and aid, among
them Thomas Palaiologos of the Morea. Alfonso took a great interest in cul-
tural matters. Though he never learnt Greek himself, he prized Lorenzo
Valla’s translations of Greek literature, and many other Italian humanists
dedicated their translations to him (Leonardo Bruni, Poggio Bracciolini, and
Pier Candido Decembrio were among these). Even more important for the
assessment of Text 81 is the fact that, as a result of Alfonso’s contacts with
the activities of Italian humanists, he warmly welcomed and offered payment
to any Greek scholar who chose to settle in Naples. Thus, Gregory Tipher-
nas, George Trapezuntios of Crete, and Theodore Gazes were among those
who benefitted from Alfonso’s ambitions as a “Renaissance king.”194
Under the office of princeps we find the prince of Taranto together with
the initial “M.” This is an odd combination: there was no such person in the
191
On Michael VIII Palaiologos’ role in the uprise against the Angevins, see his “autobiogra-
phy” (ed. GRÉGOIRE 1959). The emperor’s description of his life and deeds is part of a typikon
for the convent of St. Demetrios in Constantinople (GRUNEBAUM 1964, 97). On the Sicilian
Vespers, see also GEANAKOPLOS 1959, 335–367.
192
Alfonso’s royal claim to Naples was recognized by Pope Eugenius IV in 1443. The reason
why the Kingdom of Naples continued to be called another “Sicily,” derives from its histori-
cal origin as part of the Norman conquest of Sicily. The lighthouse—Farum—at the straits of
Messina marked the border between the two Sicilies. The alternative formula which we find
in Text 81, Rex utriusque Siciliae, was also employed for titulating Alfonso V, and appears in
the record of the parliament as early as 1443 (RYDER 1976, 32).
193
Note that Alfonso’s son Ferdinand (Ferrante) I of Naples and Jerusalem is not the same
person as Ferdinand of Sicily (later also named Ferdinand II of Aragon and, after 1504, Ferdi-
nand III of Naples), who was mentioned in n. 187, above. The two kings were first cousins.
194
On Alfonso’s contacts with the humanist movement and his ambitions to create a library
and center of scholarship at Naples, see RYDER 1990, 313–335.
249
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
195
A similar case is notated in ÖBERG 1997, 17.
196
PONTIERI 1935, 611.
197
One may compare, for example, the spelling of De Bagi as
°<\ (PLP 19608).
250
How to address the Pope (and a friend): Text 81
upon this renewed division of the Church with approval. In fact, Amadeo
VIII was supported only by his son, who was now the duke of Savoy, by
some German potentates and universities, by the university of Cracow, and,
for a period, by Alfonso of Aragon.198 Only two cardinals were devoted to
the antipope: Hugues-Lancelot de Lusignan and Louis Aleman. The former
was connected to the house of Savoy through his sister Anne de Lusignan,
princess of Cyprus and wife of Ludovico I of Savoy, i.e. the son of
Amadeo/Pope Felix V. In 1449 the schism came to an end as Felix V laid
down the Papal Tiara, and accepted the rank of “cardinale del titolo di S.
Sabina.” He died at Geneva in 1451.
Ludovico I of Savoy succeeded his father as head of the duchy in 1434.
Although not as prominent as his father, he did play a certain role in the poli-
tical complications which followed upon the proclamation of Repubblica
Ambrosiana (1447). Ludovico was—as was the marquis of Este—one of the
many participants who wanted their share at the scramble which seemed to
be at hand in Lombardy. When the people of Milan in their precarious situa-
tion searched for a solution, there were voices raised in favor of the duke of
Savoy (as also of King Alfonso V) as a possible new leader of the duchy.
Eventually, they unanimously advocated Francesco Sforza, who became the
new duke of Milan in 1450. At the time of Ludovico’s death in 1465, the
ducal title was passed on to his son, Amadeo IX.
Of the two dukes of Savoy we have been discussing here, the likeliest
guess would be that the titulary address in Text 81 refers to the latter, Ludo-
vico I, considering the fact that he had taken over the title in 1434. Even
though his father Amadeo continued to be influential after that date, we must
bear in mind that he then went by the name of Felix V, and politically also
acted in quite a different role than before. Ludovico’s marital connection to
the kingdom of Cyprus is another detail which ought to have been of interest
to a Greek scribe. One may add that, palaeographically, a carelessly slanted
“µ” may easily be mistaken for a “” in the process of copying. The apo-
graph would in that case reproduce a “G” in the Latin text, just as we have it
in Text 81.
In the case of the marquis, we need not guess anymore: the scribe gave us
the full name of Leonello d’Este, eminent marquis of Ferrara (1407–1450).
Following a military education, Leonello became acquainted with humanist
studies, which flourished in Ferrara thanks to Giovanni Aurispa in the 1420s
and Guarino Guarini da Verona in the 1430s.199 Under Guarino’s guidance he
pursued studies in rhetoric, history and philosophy, and at the opening of the
Council of Ferrara in 1438, it was Leonello d’Este who gave an elegant wel-
coming speech in Latin on behalf of Pope Eugenius IV. In political matters
198
VALERI 1949, 476.
199
For the section on Leonello d’Este, I rely mainly on BRUNELLI 1993. On Guarino’s role in
educating the prince, see also PADE 1990.
251
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
Leonello held a fairly low profile and was renowned for his prudence and
ability to keep Ferrara out of most armed conflicts—not an easy task in those
decades in Italy, when alliances with various neighboring city states needed
shifting now and again. During Leonello’s reign, which extended from 1441
until his death, he earned a grand reputation as “principe saggio.” The Court
of Ferrara became a center of humanistic learning and cultural events
through Leonello’s hospitality to scholars such as Giovanni Aurispa, Pier
Candido Decembrio, and Theodore Gazes, as well as to poets, musicians and
painters (among these Antonio Pisanello and Iacopo Bellini).200 The Biblio-
teca Estense was another chief concern of Leonello’s. Leonello’s father,
Niccolò III had begun this enterprise, buying books, ordering copies, and
engaging the somewhat ruthless book trader Giovanni Aurispa at his court.
Leonello continued to consolidate their holdings, and furthermore embraced
the idea of creating a sort of public library, a lasting collection of all litera-
ture—Latin, Greek, and vernacular—for “the common use of learned
men.”201
The city of Fondi is situated to the south of Rome, along the Via Appia,
and not very far from Montecassino. To find a count of Fondi whose name
starts with an H, we must go to Onorato (Honoratus) II Caetani d’Aragona,
whose countship lasted for half a century (1441–1491).202 The Aragonian
branch of the Caetani family was particularly powerful in the time of
Onorato II, who, besides filling the offices of logothete and protonotary, also
was a close personal friend of Ferdinand I of Naples.203 During his countship,
Onorato II contributed to the construction of several churches at Fondi and
furthermore to the beautiful palace where he kept a grandiose court.204 As he
was one of the richest and most influential magnates of the Kingdom of
Naples, it is particularly interesting that an inventory of all his mobile and
immobile possessions was taken down at the time of his death in 1491. This
manuscript has recently been made accessible through the efforts of Sylvie
Pollastri. According to the inventory, Onorato’s library seems to have con-
tained, among other items, Aesop (“un livre précieux”), Aristotle’s Ethics,
200
On the patronage of the Court of Ferrara, see further PADE, WAAGE PETERSEN & QUARTA
1990.
201
CELENZA 2004, 52. On the Biblioteca Estense, see CAPPELLI 1889; GRAFTON 1997, 19–49.
202
The other count of Fondi with the same name, Onorato I, was the grandfather of Onorato
II. He died in 1400.
203
Sicily and the southern parts of the Italian peninsula were substantially hellenized during
several centuries and the Byzantine administrative system based on themes functioned also in
this western outpost of the Byzantine state. This explains the protracted use of Byzantine
administrative titles like logothete and protonotary, even at the time when Sicily had become
a Norman (and later Aragonese) colony. The office which Onorato II held at the court of
Naples may be compared to the chancellor’s.
204
CAETANI 1930, 251.
252
How to address the Pope (and a friend): Text 81
205
POLLASTRI 2006, xxiii.
206
PLP, nos.15056–15087. The varieties in spelling are recorded in connection to no. 15059.
The text offered by the Escorialensis ª.IV.1.,
@ µ$, does not help us here.
207
In the late 16th c., Steffano Lusignano di Cipro wrote a work on Cyprus, Chorograffia et
breve historia universale dell’ Isola de Cipro (ed. PELOSI 2001). There is in Steffano’s render-
ing of the House of Lusignan no mention of a baron Sansoneto de Lusignan. But he does have
an enumeration of the other houses of Cyprus, which might be of interest (section 15): among
them there is one Cypriot family with the name of Sanson. Could we suppose a connection
here? The French baptismal name Sansonnet, since the late Middle Ages also known as the
name for a bird, the starling, is the hypocoristic form of the biblical name Samson or Sanson
(DAUZAT 1949, 126 and 217).
208
According to Dionysios Zakythinos, some 10 000 men came together with their families
and livestock (ZAKYTHINOS 1975, I, 131 and II, 31–36).
209
That there is an island at the coastline of Southern Albania called Sazan (%; Ital.
Saseno) does not make this less intriguing (though it may just be a coincidence of little sig-
nificance, since the name Sansoneto is explainable anyway). On the island Sazan, see LAM-
PROS 1914.
210
Not least they seem to have chosen Sicily and southern Italy as their new place of settle-
ment, perhaps feeling more at home there due to their double identity as both Albanians and
Morean Greeks (cf. ZAKYTHINOS 1975, II, 36).
253
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
254
How to address the Pope (and a friend): Text 81
continued his teaching there well into his eighties—the last consilia that he
undersigned show an old man’s wobbly and barely legible signature.217
In the case of the artium doctor the specifications of the formulary are
unambiguous. Matheus de Perusio is found in the very same Paduan univer-
sity records and during the same period of time. In 1432 the “licencia et
publica in med. egr. arc. doct. mag.” of Matheo (or Matheolo) Baldasari was
approbated.218 Later on, he was to become the most famous medicus from
Perugia in the Quattrocento. His teaching career started off with medicine
and philosophy in Perugia in 1427. In 1447 he became a lecturer at the fac-
ulty of medicine in Padua, the university where he came to spend most of his
active years. He died and was buried in Padua in 1479.219 One of his numer-
ous disciples during these years, Hartmann Schedel, has left us a eulogy that
is quite fascinating to read—it certainly shows that the superlatives in our
titulary record are in no way an exaggeration compared to his posthumous
reputation:
Matheolo of Perugia, the most learned among the physicians of our time,
king among philosophers, and simply the most prominent in all liberal arts
and every branch of science, my most erudite teacher. His were the lectures
which I, Hartmann Schedel from Nuremberg, Paduan doctor, sat in on for
three years, and from him [...] I received my doctorate in Padua.220
Matheolo from Perugia was renowned not only for his skills in medicine and
philosophy, but also for his rhetorical talent. He gave several orations at the
university, and seems to have had a wide-embracing interest in humanistic
and scientific studies.221 Later on in his eulogy, Hartmann Schedel especially
mentions Matheolo’s expertise in poetry, oratory, astronomy and music.222
As for Hartmann himself, he went from Nuremberg to Padua to study medi-
cine in the 1460s, just as his elder cousin Hermann had done before him. He
cial system which endorses the deposing of a pope who shows misconduct in office. On
Roselli’s treatise Monarchia, see THOMSON 1975 and WEITZ 2002, 49–114.
217
See BELLONI 1986, 143–149, who also includes information on manuscripts and editions
of Antonio Roselli’s works.
218
ZONTA & BROTTO 1922, 206.
219
VERRUA 1924, 88.
220
Matheolus Perusinus Medicus doctissimus hoc tempore medicorum, ac philosophorum
monarcha, omniumque liberalium artium cunctarumque scientiarum facile princeps, precep-
tor meus eruditissimus. Quem ego Hartmannus Schedel Nurembergensis doctor Patavinus
tribus annis ordinarie legentem auscultavi, a quo [...] doctoratus Padue accepi (SCHEDEL
1493, cclii).
221
On Matheolus’ oratory, see SIRAISI 2004, 193f., with further literature. For his commentary
on the Aphorisms of Hippocrates, see KIBRE & SIRAISI 1975. His treatise on mnemonics, De
Memoria, was reprinted time and again from 1474 and onwards (KLEBS 1938, 222f.).
222
Pietro Verrua (1924, 87–88) seems not to have distinguished between Hartmann Schedel
and his cousin Hermann Schedel, who also studied in Padua. Thus, it was of course Hermann
who became a laureate in medicine in 1442 (the younger cousin, Hartmann, was then only
two years old).
255
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
223
For the various forms of this name, see PLP 30511.
224
On the Nuremberg Chronicle, see WILSON & WILSON 1976. On Schedel’s humanist inter-
ests as reflected by his library, see STAUBER 1908.
225
BIGI 1962, 593.
226
As Nigel Wilson points out, the often quoted figure of 238 manuscripts refers to the vol-
umes containing pagan texts alone; we do not know how many volumes with patristic and
other spiritual contents Aurispa added to these (WILSON 1992, 25).
227
In Hartmann Schedel’s Nuremberg Chronicle, only one line is devoted to Aurispa: Joan-
nes quoque Aurispa secretarius apostolicus rhetor luculentus in precio fuit et quedam compo-
suit (SCHEDEL 1493, ccxlvi).
228
On the inventory of Aurispa’s own library at his death in 1459, see FRANCESCHINI 1976.
256
How to address the Pope (and a friend): Text 81
lies in Rome, the Savelli alias Sabelli. To this family, which became promi-
nent in the thirteenth century, are counted cardinals and even a couple of
popes (Honorius III and Honorius IV), furthermore a considerable number of
condottieri, mercenary leaders.229 Several members of the Savelli family
were christened Paulus. One Paolo Savelli (1350–1405) served initially as a
military commander under Gian Galeazzo Visconti of Milan, but after tem-
porary assignments in Florence and Bologna he became the general of the
troops of Venice.230 He died of the plague while besieging Padua. A wooden
equestrian sculpture of him was erected shortly afterwards in Santa Maria
Gloriosa dei Frari, a church that was still under construction at the time of
his death. This Savelli was apparently also a wealthy man, since he contrib-
uted to the building fund of the same church.231 The address in Text 81,
which describes Paulus as nobilis et dives, < ¤ #, would thus
be eminently met in this condottiere. Another Paulo is mentioned briefly in
Pompeo Litta’s genealogical work: the son of Mariano Savelli and Servanzia
Del Balzo, i.e, belonging to the Palombara branch of the Savelli house, this
Paulo served in the army of the Florentine Republic in 1479.232 The occasion
was the war against Pope Sixtus IV after the so-called “Pazzi conspiracy”
(the attempted coup d’état against Lorenzo de’ Medici and the assassination
of his brother Giuliano de’ Medici). Whereas the date of birth of this condot-
tiere is unknown, he must have died long before 1509, according to Litta.233
Towards the end of Text 81, it becomes increasingly difficult to identify
the people referred to. The individuals called Petrus and Antonius may for-
ever be hidden in history. There are ten of these less specific entries, ad-
dressed to friends, to a brother, to a son, and for the rest they simply give
different options for how to approach anyone in letter form with courtesy
and affability. Even though the addresses to a brother or a son might be
aimed at family relations, one could also, and with a certain extent of prob-
ability, expect them to pertain to ecclesiastical or monastic relations, as when
a cleric writes to a colleague or an abbot to his fellow brother in Christ. In
my survey above, I have not brought up the question of polite phrases and
the different levels of subservience and flattery, but one may easily imagine
the importance of this matter for the Byzantine émigrés. Naturally, it had
been of great significance in Constantinople too, in contacts with various
229
The Savelli family was conferred the office of conclave marshal by Pope Gregory X, a
position which was hereditary until the family’s extinction in 1712, and which now belongs to
the Chigi family (BAUMGARTNER 2003, 40).
230
ZEDLER 1742, vol. 34, 302.
231
On the sculpture of Paulo Savelli, see VALENTINO 1953.
232
His father Mariano, also a military man, was for a long time employed by the Aragonese of
Naples, then by Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta (1417–68), and finally by Pope Sisto IV
(LITTA 1872, plate VII).
233
“[M]orì assai prima del 1509” (LITTA, ibid.). There may, of course, have been another 15th-
c. Paulus Sabellus, noble and rich, who did not make it to the annals of history but happened
to be mentioned in our titulary collection.
257
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
court officials and servants of the Church. In the new political situation,
where one needed to adjust oneself to Western feudal hierarchies and con-
ventions, the question of language might become yet a stumbling block. The
scribe of Gr 8 apparently saw a formulary like Text 81 as a useful remedy
for this, even though we do not know whether he needed it for his own sake
or if he was teaching someone else how to navigate in an hierarchical soci-
ety.
Pope: no name/date
Cardinal: Bessarion, appointed cardinal in December 1439
appointed Sabinensis 5. March 1449
appointed Tusculanensis 23. April 1449 † 1472
Bishop: F. Pizolpasso bishop of Pavia 1427–June 1435. † 1443
Abbot: A. Chalkeopylos abbot in Patirion 1448–1457 † 1497
Priest: Demetrios of S. Maria Maioris (no further identification)
Monk: Marco of Monte Cassino (no further identification)
King: Alfonso V ruled over both Sicilies from 1442 † 1458
Prince: G. Del Balzo Orsini ruler of Tarent from 1414 † 1465
Duke: Ludovico of Savoy duke from 1434 † 1465
234
From the page layout it is clear that in Gr 8 the Latin text was copied prior to the Greek;
the Greek words are carefully positioned to fit on top of each Latin equivalent. The nib width
and ink color used in the entry mentioning Marcus, monk of Monte Cassino, also suggest that
the scribe, Theodoros, either used a model which allowed him to supplement the Latin—the
“.d.” (for “dominus”) is a correction added simultaneously with the Greek translation—or else
that Theodoros knew enough Latin phrasing to supplement this text from the Greek wording
in the model.
258
How to address the Pope (and a friend): Text 81
Some of these timespans are too wide to provide any guidance for us. The
time of reign for the king, marquis, and count points to a date after 1441–42
and before 1450, and most of the other entries would fit into the 1440s. The
cardinal and abbot entries lever the balance towards the middle of the cen-
tury, or 1448–49. On the other hand, if we consider the possibility of a cul-
tural network which included the persons above, and perhaps even an exist-
ing letter collection, the most interesting period would be around the time of
the Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence. The contacts and friendships made in
that setting, through contacts between Roman and Byzantine prelates, intel-
lectuals, and political leaders, have left vestiges far and wide in letters and
notes which still remain in Italian library collections and elsewhere. Above, I
have pointed to Pizolpasso’s wide correspondence with persons in the hu-
manist circles, something which may explain why he is included in the for-
mulary even though his Pavian appointment lies outside our tentative time
span of the 1440s. Even if we suppose a general connection between many
of the above-mentioned persons mainly at the Florence council proceedings,
i.e. when Pizolpasso had already become archbishop of Milan, he would still
have been a prominent figure. Earlier letters from or to him, where he is
titulated episcopus papiensis, could have been available in somebody else’s
copy. Agostino Sottili mentions the correspondence between Aurispa, Pizol-
passo, and Leonello d’Este.235 We have seen that Athanasios Chalkeopylos
maintained contacts with Bessarion and many others. Other nodal points of
great importance would be Bessarion and his “academy” in Rome, or one of
the courts which became locales of benefaction for Byzantine and Italian
intellectuals, whether at Naples, Fondi, or Ferrara.
On the other hand, with an epistolary network one need not gather every-
body in one place, and this is convenient when dealing with Text 81. Geo-
graphically the entries cover parts of southern Italy, with its Byzantine con-
nections still operating in monastery circles, further Naples, Rome, and other
princely centers in central and northern Italy, and university settings such as
Padua. The titulary collection suggests the networking which was called for
235
SOTTILI 1966, 63.
259
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
236
Cf. MANOUSSACAS 1973, 517.
237
MORAUX 1976, 81.
260
How to address the Pope (and a friend): Text 81
238
Before these texts ended up in a folder in the Royal Library at Brussels, they were part of a
two volume composite manuscript belonging to Pierre Pantin. The quire with Aristotle’s
Metaphysica and the quire with Christonymos’ Monody were included in the second volume,
though in reverse order (cf. MORAUX 1976, 78–83).
239
See the catalog entry in ANDRÉS 1967, 81–85. I would like to express my gratitude to
Professor José Luis del Valle Merino at the El Escorial Library for giving me the opportunity
to consult this manuscript firsthand.
240
Cf. RABE 1909, 286.
241
A reason for this misplacement at binding could be the quire numbering, since in the lower
margin of the last verso of f. 300 and of f. 312 there is the quire number “-.” The number
“"-” follows on f. 321v. The quire number on f. 312 is apparently not in the same hand as the
other two mentioned.
242
ANDRÉS 1967, 82; cf. the edition of Emmanuel Raul’s letters, in LOENERTZ 1956.
243
In addition to Emmanuel Raul’s letters, the following authors are included: Basil the Great,
Gregory of Nazianzos, Libanios, Isidore of Pelousion, Synesios of Cyrene, Manuel Palaio-
261
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
what seems to be a skilled hand, but the orthography is very confused. A com-
parison with Text 81 as it stands in Gr 8 reveals that the Escorial manuscript
gives a less complete text and muddles some of the items.244 It uses the superla-
tive throughout, whereas the Uppsala manuscript shows a gradation in line with
the status of the addressee. The place name in line 63, ¶% (Fondi) is dis-
torted: the scribe probably read the phi in the model as a tall one-stroke tau
with a loop, the way he himself often writes tau.
We have already seen that Text 81 in Gr 8 must have been copied from a
model; this would explain some of the peculiarities in initials and also the
concentration of entries which point to the 1440s, perhaps peaking in 1449.
Since the Escorialensis
.IV.1 as a whole is dated to the mid-fifteenth cen-
tury, its formulary would thus chronologically be closer to the original
source. But since its readings are inferior in many places as compared to the
ones in Gr 8, my conclusion is that neither of the two is the model for the
other one. Rather, there must have been a third manuscript source to which
both of them are related, each in its own way.
In the Escorial manuscript a fascinating addition was put in at the end of the
formulary. It is an attempt to put together the opening of a letter to cardinal
Bessarion. We recognize the first phrase from the formulary itself, but then the
scribe continued with another few lines, as can be seen below. I keep the spell-
ing unchanged, except for using capital letters in names.
^ $ : –
@
% ²
$% $% · ·
%
@% #$%
¯ *<
^ ^ º%ï¯ =#¯
@#$
# \ Ð
_,
=\
@ @
%: –
logos. There are also some anonymous letters; cf. ANDRÉS 1967, 83. The codicological unit
ends right before f. 346 (after three blank leaves and the stub from a cut-out leaf).
244
Missing are, for example, the place name Patire, and Maria in the phrase “
¯ À<$ °-
$
¯ ° $.” Confusion as to which item some of the words belong, can be seen in
lines 25–29 and 77–79. The scribe has apparently made a leap from Ð<\´ (line 99) to
<
Î in the next item, thus mixing two items into one. The same could have happened in
line 97, where no brother is mentioned; perhaps he picked up the ending “ $´” from
the preceding item.
262
Afterword
Initially I stated that this would be a pilot study. It has been, but in two
meanings of the word: a study of the codex from different perspectives and a
study of the pilot himself, the " ò
""#$ Theodoros. The scribe has
been an important centripetal force, and I have hopefully shown that the
maze of texts was less chaotic than a first glance would suggest. Still, I hesi-
tate to demand full closure and coherence from a codex like this. It should be
allowed to sprawl, because that is part of the character of a composite with
miscellaneous contents. The centrifugal tendencies might have presented
themselves with more clarity had we chosen other foci in the analysis of the
contents. This inherent vacillation between openness and closure also means
that a different approach may be needed for another composite. One crucial
element must however be included: the codicological survey, which provides
the basis for assessing the structure of the whole codex and of the parts that
make up the whole.
Even though the scribe Theodoros has been very much present in this
study, we still know little of him as a person. Perhaps more information will
come to light in the future through the study of other manuscripts in his
handwriting or other sources. As for now, the “psychogram” is only initiated
on the grounds of his work procedure and the contents of his “one-volume
library.” In creating the codex Theodoros has woven a song of himself, and
we are subsequently invited to follow some of the threads. Maybe a hitherto
faded picture emerges, maybe we make a new one out of the fabric, based on
our world view and experience.
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
Text 6
%' * +
/ ;/ <+;/ (f. 98r)
Á \
¯ ®_¯¨ ^, , , }
$ =. ~ + ^
\
@
=
Ú Á
¨ }¬ , Õ, $ø
%}Õ.
¯ + ®_¯ \
$¨ =
, @=
> #<
.
Á \
=¬
^ <
>¨1 ©, Û}, ¬, < ^ }¯.
Text 12
=>
? ;/
@ R#/ @
V@ (ff. 122v–127r)
\¨ }#\. ·= # ^ (#?)¨ @
\.
\ ¨
<#. <#_¨ # ¤ $.
·¨ #=$. <#%® (<$#%® LSJ)¨ ~ ".
*#%¨ #"%. + ¤ =
#¤
·#}
¨
$
. . }
+
= $¨
> _$#. .
· =¨ <_$# , @Ë $¨
}#¤
}, @
= \´. ¿ ~
.
#}¯ (-¬} LSJ)¨ $. ¨
> $. #\<
+
$
¨
>
_"
. · ~ }#>
^
· # # ¬¨ "%$.
+ #.
ý ^ Ú << $¨ ~ _#>
%.
@=$
. ·= =#¨ ~ <<.
·¨ @> º$ % Ê #"
¨ ¿
\_
%
$.
$_,
> # <
<#%¨
> #
>
$=.
¨
$. (- Du (123r) *#> %^¨
> }
.
Cange) ·}#
¨ $ @ |"$.
$%¨
>
. }#
$¨
>
$}##.
+
#¨
¯ }
> } . $.
1
The word suggested inside brackets is missing in the manuscript due to trimming of the
page; cf. John of Damascus, who calls the senses %
$ (Jo. Dam. virt., PG 95,
85B–C.), and Ath., De morbo 7, 26ff.
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
} #¨
> $. YZ < @[>
#<_ ¨ (-#_ LSJ)
¯ <#$¨ %$.
>
<$. <# (i.e. <#<<)¨ @Ë <<$"
*#¨
> Ã#. =.
< $¨
¯ #
}$. <#¨ ¬% ~
$
, ~
¤ |
¨
> "" #.
# . <#$<% (i.e. <#¬_%/"#¬_%)¨
>
#=$¨ #<_ (-#_ LSJ) "#.
_
¤ _#. <# ^¨
> .
*#"¨
} (i.e.
_) <¨
> #% #\
~ Ë > @=. #.
· ¨
> #<%. <#¨
> # (i.e. <#-).
·#¨
>
.
}¨
> _#_. YZ @[
"
¨ <_$# @Ë (- > "#¨
>
.
corr. supra lin.) ®$=. ¨
> ·#,
+
_¨
> _ "
. º.
·} (}% cod.) \
¨ ^ }##%¨ \#%
, #=, ·=
\% @=$ =.
\#. (cf. Gal. 10.578) #_¨ Á }#
$¨
> ¡<<"
, @ }<\ (}-?)¨ #}%$.
_$#
·= . ¨ %$.
=¨ #. ¨ ~
}. (-_- LSJ)
<>¨ @\ _$#. $®¨ Î ~ #. ®>
Ã#¨
> . + "
~ _#\%.
< ¨
> # \ .
($
?)¨ ~ ·< <#$_%.
YZ @[
YZ @[
"_¨ }#. ¡#$¨
> = .
"\} }¨ ·
. @##\"¨
> $.
"#¨
> Ê=
. @=¨
> º.
"
_¨ "=$. ¨ ~ } .
"\##¨ _#> > @Ë @#
¬ ~ _#>
<%
Õ. (-%?).
"=¨ @> $ }##, õ
¨
> Ê
}## _%
%
$. .
" (i.e. "$)¨
> <- @ <¨ ~
% }#> ý
¯
.
.
"<#%¨
. @¨
> ·< $.
"¨
> #. ¡#\¨ <_$# , @
"#
¨ º <
<$ }##
# .
º.
¨ ~ }#> ý ý =¯ ý
"}=#¨ @> _$#, ¡
\
.
(123v)
+
> ·=
^ =¨
.
. @¨ (124r)
"#\}.
"%$¨ · # # ¬. û%¨ º.
<
+
¯ º$ @¨ #$ _ #.
>
}##%. ¡#$_¨ ·= ^.
266
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
¨ Ê
\ ý
>
. \
¨ "
$.
Ä (i.e. $)¨ ~
_#. ¨
> }".
¨ ~ # ,
+ ~ =¨
> " ý
>
´.
> #=.
#
¨
> . #¨
> .
¨
> ®$=.
YZ @[ $ ¨
> $.
=\¨
#. ¨
> % (i.e. $) Ä<
=®$¨ ¿ "
.
> ®.
=$¨
> #. ¨ <$.
=¨ } "
. ##
¬¨ ®## (#-)
= $¨
> <#%. ¨
^ "#
> \.
=¨ ~ =". # %
¨ @Ë
=#¨ " $ Ä<
> <- #
´ , Ê
. %
$%
= #$¨ $. <_¨ ¿
.
=#$¨ ~ <> (i.e. ·<) }#,
%¨ \.
+ _ ¤ $%
¨ ·=#.
·= .
¨ ¾
’ ¹
% Á
%
< º$, =’ _
YZ @[
=^
> \. ~ +
¿¨
> #. >
^ _
¨
> . \ º .
$¨
> #}. ¨
> #$.
#
¨ (i.e. Ä#-)
> " $. £
¨
> #
.
Á ¨
> <_. $¨ ¿
@>
¨
·=. #´.
Á\#¨
> <\#. <$
#$¨
> <.
+
}## _%
#$¨
$.
#
. \%¨ _#$.
Á¨
> #. =$¨
$.
Á#=¨
> <#=. ¨ Á
"# ý #
<$
+ <.
^ ¸
.
Á#=¨
> <#=. %$¨ ~ ¬%.
#}%$¨
\ º
$.
YZ < @[> <>
<#¨ ~ @ |"$,
= ¨
> #. +
. (cf. s.v. }^)
> ¿¨ ~ %
. ¨
> \#.
$
¨
>
. <#%¨
> = $.
=> ’ |$¨
> (125r) $¨ =#\ (= #$ LSJ)
Ê. (Ú- cod.) Ä< $.
($ Gal.)¨
¬. #=$¨ @
.
267
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
YZ @[ <> ^ ¨ Á
$ . (cf. s.v.
)
#%$¨ }. (125v) "#¨
# $¨ "$ Ä< =#, <$ - #
^ _"#.
¨
> > |=¬,
+ YZ @[ @
Û @ °
> (i.e.
\%
%. ¾> Ǩ ~ #.
#=¨
> ~#. ¾ \#¨
>
\#.
¨ }#, Î
}#.
#
$¨
> >
# YZ @[
¹#%
’ Û @ \ $¨
<#$.
$, _
Á
. $¨
> Û.
$¨
> #"
. (cf. Dsc. #
¨ ~ }#>
^ .
3,134) #¬
> <<.
%
¨
>
. =¨ "
.
(?)¨
> #
^ #¨
> #"_.
#" @> _^. # ¨ > }
>
268
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
¨ $. ¨
> \#.
%
¨
> %
. }\#¨
.
$¨ º
$¨ <>}$¨
> Ê %
^ ¾
\
¯
# ¨ <#_. }#¯.
$ (-\ supra lin.)¨ º\. ¨
"#\}.
#<¨
> #. "¨
> .
#¨ ¿ "
. ##¨
> ##.
}#¨
> "_. ¨ ( cod.) @> #
³
#$=³ [Ê# ], @ +
³ ¾³
YZ @[ <> $%.
º¨
}##.
¨ @Ë
³ ¾³ =
,
³
º^¨
> . + _ø Ê# .
º¨
> ¡#\.
¨ _% º$ Ú .
º$ ® %¨
> > . $}<¨ }
> _% =
¤ }#¬.
YZ @[ <> $¨
> .
%¨
> ®. (cf. s.v. )
}
¨ . YZ @[ < >
_¯ (_
¬?)¨
$.
¨
> #
> ·<,
¨
> Á\#. <$
+ }<.
%$¨ @
.
<[<]=¨
>
=.
}¨
$.
##¨ >
" ##.
\¨
>
¯=.
$¨
\}.
$#}¨ ¿ "
.
_od$%¨
=$ .
$¨ @> $
_ \¨
*## \ (*#-
_ $
Î ·= . \?)
}#¨
> ·< $.
%<#(127r)
¨
=$ @>
\¨
> ·<
". Î "#$´.
#¨ ~ #".
<<%¨
> #.
<¨ ¾> @
¯ ¥$ "-
_¨ > }
> @>
. _$´.
$¨
¯ º ·=.
_$¨ =¬.
}
Ù ¨ _% }## -
¨ Á
.
_
@\
.
=#¨
> ¾
. (¾? cf.
}
·<¨
> ¡#\. LANGKAVEL 29,1)
(126v) ¨ " #%$.
269
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
Text 14
On contraceptives, inc. ^+
@ (f. 127v)
# "
$
#¯ ¨ ## + " }= $ .
ý $ ($?) > }##
,
$
>
.
Text 18
_` / V/ Y@
/ @[
@+ (ff. 134r–137r)
^ "$ ¿ ~ #< # ¨ ¬, ®_¤
¬
% ¡
$ _ =
¯ %¯ \
_%\ > ¡
¤
·##%
%
·
. + < ¤
^ "$
©# =’ ©# >
#
¯ %¯
<$
,2 + ý >
¯ ®_¯
% ý >
¯
¯ > ¡
¤ _ ý ©#% "#\
¬=.
(134v) ¢ + ®_¤ =
$
¯ >
¤
^
@\# Ê< $ ~ >
>
=%, @'
\
} <
¯ , ¤
\ $ø ý
³
@
=\
$,
³ +
>
2
<$
] @<$
cod.
supra @- addidit
270
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
_
~^ @$, ø +
> ¤ #\
=% @$.
¢ +
¤
^ "$
^
% + û
_ Á
û
>
¹
%
<$ =
}
, ##’ ©# ’ ©# @# = @
$, " " (Ps. 67:14) < = $, Ê
\
}
\% ¬
< \%
¤ ·<
} <
#.
¬
+ X"
!" (Rom. 8:8).
ÂÁ
#
¯ > } @ $ ¡
_
\ Î, Û
_.
<
}(135r)¬
$%
^ = $ }%
>
Õ \
_.
<
@=^
\}
= Ê®#
$_
_$
_
#
^
}
\, +
¾}=#
Û
$% ®_
>
##
^ ^ ^
> }
¯ #=¯
Î Û
%¯ Ê % < \=
~%\%
¯
271
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
)" $
!
' = @" +
©" ° >
"> " + " X" (1 Cor. 2:14).
±
" ! "
",
~
" @"
+
(Rom. 8:14).
ÂÁ +
_^
¤
¤ @Õ\ %¤ ’ ©#
$
Î Î, $ Ú
Î. < ¡
=$
®_
@
#
^ K$
^. ^ ¡
(136v) Ê+
¯ <
^,
¤
¬
$
<$,
> _ #
¯ $, = $ø ^
\#
@
¯ <¯, _³ #\
Õ
> ^ #^ }%
> #>
> <
,
³ ¬
= #
% _%$
$ ®_ >
¯
^
= $ ©#
^
<$
. >
<%$
## #^
Ê>
%
%.
> = < @_ > = %$
^
¯
$ %
¤
< @ =
Û
% = %$ }$ #"
¯ \
^ \
Ê % < \
¯
^
%.
$
¤ =
^
$ø }%
\Õ
Ê+ = < <
^
> #< @ \´ @#$ ^
<%<¯
#< = @ = $ @ <
<$
= Ã# } = ~ >
}=\<<
¨ ; { < ² * * (137r) + ; { < #
>
(Mt. 2:13–14): } +, Ú
> "$ @
#>
Î #<´ }>
¤
, Ã# +, Ú
¤ < #
¤ = $
>
¤ }
^ ^.
Text 19
On the three stages of spiritual life, inc. V/ j` >
/ (ff. 137r–138v)
@
\
# " %¨
=
¬, }%
¬,
¤
# ¨ \ @
<%<, +
\%, +
# $%. <
%
_ ~
¤
²
> #$ <$
@
"
@
"
"
(Eph. 4:13).
<^ =
¤
Ä > < Á <\% @
+
¯ =
¯ }¯
^ _Ç^ = (1 Cor. 15:49), #
%
# $ }$
^ ^ =
^
\ *<$ (Col. 3:9–10). < +
>
¯ ¹#,
¯
¯
, }<¤
$ @ = > =
> #< , @
# # <\
\# , > +
>
#=
¤
Ã#
¯ *
$,
>
Ä= _
º=¯
^
> (137v)
@
>
^
$ (Mt. 23:26)
% @=
> #^
(2 Cor. 7:1) ¹
%
> ¿
^ #< "# @
Î
> }$
$ = =\ <<
Î "#
% < ^.
\# +
Î %=¯ @
%
Î
¯ ¬ %
272
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
<%
> $= *
$
%=¯
#
"}¯
Î
¯
% ¹
}
# =¯
>
=
% . ~
^
}= ## <% ¬ %
" @}
, }
#
% <$% =,
@ =
Î
> = $ (Heb. 11:33–34), @<\
_>
Ú $
·## $
(Job 1:1)
ʯ
Ë
>
.
¢ + }%
¤
@ Á <% ®
% @
$
=
\ @
<
Û
%, = %$
#<%
¯
$ %
$
^ *<$
. < + =
^ > (138r)
^
> <\
^ = $,
¾}=#
¯ $ #®,
^ #< <\ =’ Ê®#
%
¯ < %.
\# + ~
#<
¯ }$
}
Û
%, @$<%
= $%
=%$% <
% #®
$%
¯ "# $
. ~
^
}=
^ > @<$ ·
> (2 Kgs
2:11) @_
Ç
, Ú $
·## "$
\
>
>
, #
$ Ê %
¯
^
< <Ë
%.
¢
¤ +
# >
Ä
% @
$
\
#$ @#=
% ²
^. +
>
> \
^
> Ê ®,
>
·%
< \=
,
Î
´
}%
#
"=
^ ^ @ ¯ (1 Cor. 2:3)
^
.
< +
> #
> =
¤
% ^
$ #<%
(138v) #= $,
# % <
% "#
#<%
¯ = $ <}¯.
\# +
>
<%<¯
> ¹
%
# \
}
¬
^ ^,
> }$ ¡
> # ¬
$
^
, }> = #< @#$ <#
^
Î #<´
¯ }$
¯ = #<$.
Text 29
@[ { @[ (scil. John Chrysostom) inc. |
Z Y (ff. 189v–190v)
273
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
Text 30
}
@[ ~@+ @+ @[ _` @+ ";/ ` ` ;/
j@+ @/ (ff. 190v–192v)
¤ ¡
\
\ %
~ = ,
+
¤ ¡
\
@
#\<
.
³ = #¬
\
_
<\
¤ @\< .
¤ + ÷ _
}#=%$
³ Õ %³ #¬% ¨
##_= @
# ""
\## ¨ %
"¬= ¨ <<\# @\
}#¨ >
%
> >
@<
\ 4
\%
¬¨ }¬
® ¨
\
’
< <
¨
\#
> < ¯ Ê
^
Á> Ê+ % ¨ \# ¡
^
>
*<$ _(192r) ®
¤
^ *<$
"
$
<\ @%¬
, ¹
% Á = ^ <#
¯ Ê
^ "# $
¬
.
$
< $ _
< <
=
¬
¤
> $
@
#
^
}¬ ,
> Ü
¯ =¬
^ @ ! Ê<= >
< =,
> ^
¯ _
@"$ ,
$ #> ##’ ý
> $
^ }¯
>
¯ $ @
¯ > @ ¼
’ $
" "%\% Ê
^ #¨
; ¹
% < @
~
^ $ #<
<=
<\
##
}#
¤ \
$. @ + ~ *
%#>
$
¯
^ = ^ < ¬
= ý =%$ $ ý ©#%
$%, ¯# (192v)
÷ ©
$
_ Ú
_ _ , ##' Ú =\
, Ð
,
>
^ = ^
}¬%. ~ + = >
3
· ]
cod.
4
cod.
274
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
Î #< ·## > Û. $ ÷ @
¤ Ê
^ $
^ $
#<.
Text 31
@[ { @[ (scil. Mark Eugenikos) @
Y
@+*
@ ?/ ~ (ff. 192v–193r)
@
"= @
(Mt. 22:13)
> <¬
¯
<%$ >
= $ <
$ ¤ "#= ¨ # (Mk. 9:48)
"#
¤ ¤
¯ > ##^
= \
Î ""´
= @<#= ¨
@®<\
¯ = >
>
#$ <¨ ^ } <<+
@ \ Ê> =^
>
Text 32
Problem, inc. @ / Y*
(f. 193r–v)
|$ \_
~ = > o#%#\
¤ \
^
#¬= =%
@ *
$ ¡
o
¤ %¤
%¨5
µ¨
£ #¯= \ #\< ; # @ #¯= ¿. = Î + ©
= Ú
<Ë > , Ú $ #6 @#<$= (Is. 40:15); o
@
> \"#
\< =
¯ = $ %;
^ }¬
#\<
¨ ° ) < !
* * +
¯
"
’ * ³+ X
(Is. 40:22). \ ®##7 @
¯ , ý @
#_%
$% \}= ; = +
> +
’ }#
}
= Î ’
¤ ¡
>
, (193) + ~
.
+
¯ = $ $ >
¤
%¤ ¾#=¬
,
Á
= Î #,
>
}
.
= +
>"
`
!" !"
(Ps. 5:7). _ ~
> > Ú " # =
,
¯
<¯ <
, %#¬%, _%, %$ ¬ %
5
Ð
% cod.
6
Ú $ #] Ú # cod.
7
®_ cod.
275
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
@#¬
,8
^
@
= Î, ®_¤ %= $ ’ *
$,
¯ = $
%¯ ¡$% ¡
¤ _%$.
Text 33
{Z j/ Z *@
$@ @ (ff. 193v–194v)
£
,
, = ¯
,
º
% · _
#<.
%
#<,
< ,
¤ #
¯ ®_¯, ¤ $Õ.
 }\%
@"#
^ "
,
}\%
¤ @$= , }\%
¤ $,
\<%
_, @\, #_, #.
(194r) _ Ê\
¤ #,
¤
.
"
=’ \,
, "## "\#
% #< ,
< = = $
.
%# $ "= =\# , %= .
®_¯
" , Ð%
> ^ ,
>
% , @$#%
> ^.
@\\
¤ #
#¤
¯ %},
@\ º>
¯ *
$ .
@# , }¬
> #^
¯ ®_¯ ,
,
_$
> = ^ =\
\
\
# .
µ> *<¤ _
, ²
,
>
%
}<
\%,
> ²
> ¬
^
>
<#
}¬
>
\}
¨
¤
$
@#\(194v),
$
> > _ ^#
> ¹
%
,
$%.
"#
® @
_
¤ _
@}#\%
¤
$#®
¤ ¤ \ \_
\#,
@
Î
\# + *<¤
@\ @ >
^ %$,
©% Ê #<
¤ @¤
<#% ^
> #
= ,
^
.
8
cod.
276
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
Text 35
Sayings by Maximos, Demosthenes, et al. (ff. 195v–196r)
#,
¤ <=¤ "##\ @#$, }\ ’ ©
~ = >
< $%.
[3.] @[ { @[¨ `
+ <,
¯ _¤ + , \ ’
$.
[4.] @[ { @[¨ > < ÷ Ñ
¤ Ó }¤10
^11 }
ò
<Ó<
.
[5.] @[ { @[¨ ¤ _Ñ
%, ·
Ô
% +
< Ò=
×
%.
[6.] @[ { @[¨ £
+ }\
$, ^ + < =
$.
[7.] (196r) @[ { @[¨ ¶Ô <
^
×
%,
@=Ò#
Ô
#Ô
%.
[8.] @ @+¨ "
#¯%
¬, @<Ë \ Ú < Ĩ12 ’ @#
_Õ.
[9.] Ì < \
^ #
_, @ } @"# Û
% ¾
¨
< #"
=\% #
}\ <\,
_ ©
_
$Õ.
[10.]
@ *@+/¨ Ì @
> Ê
=
¤ , Ú
> ¤
Ê
= .
Text 38
A gnomology derived from Constantine Manasses’ Synopsis Chronike
(ff. 197r–199v)
1) [272–276]
¹
% +
¯ =^ ®_¯
_
,
=¬, ^,
^ <# =.
9
³] =$ cod.
10
}¤] }¤ cod.
11
^]
cod.
12
Ä] Ä_ cod.
277
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
"#
=, *
$ ·_ ,
"#$% $% @"¬
#\
$< .
2) [780–782 + 956–957]
|##’ }## , # ,
_ = $,
¤ #
¤
@#\
@
<$ } @"¯
> $.
##’
\, Ú , @
Î "$´,
#^
, "$#
,
$.
3) [1157–60; 1162–67]
$ <¤ ##¬, û}, _
,
, %, ", __,
¡#"#\}, *", _$
% <\ ·#
# "_$%,
} , ## ·
,
4) [1327–28]
"
_¤ #¬= , + =
\%
< #%# =
=.
5) [1403–09]
ÿ ¿ ÷ ### Ë
Î
¬=
~ \< @ #=Î >
> £#\% }
«
· # # <$< "_ ,
# Ð
> =#\
.»
~ ’ > @} \
« # ô}" £
#»,
^
’ Ë @\ ~
#^
Ù%.
6) [2078–79]
|
¬ @
¯
¯ Ê\#,
¤ ## @
_%
%.
7) [2529–32]
ÿ ·
> _
"",
¤ }#$ ·
%
¤ }####$
¿ ¤ ##<#% =#%
}# ¨
8) [2600–2607]
|##’
\, Ú ,
_
^ "$
278
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
9) [2693–2695]
ÿ · <
\
$
û = = }#^
¤
$
¯ }####$.
10) [2792–2796]
> < = ^
} #
$ _ =
¾#\ >
¯ ;
= ^ <##¤ _ $ }$,
# $, $} Ê
\ ,
^, ="", }
=.
11) [2819–2820]
¹
% ##
@<
> \,
¹
% @#$ #
=% }\.
12) [2846–2848]
ÿ ·
¯
¯
> _¯ %
,
##< ¬, =< ¬, ##, ##=, =¨
<
@
.
13) [2873–2877]
|##
> =\
^ _$,
##
$%
%¨
^
# û< @ "=%
,
^
Û##,
^
#\
©#% @= }>
_ .
14) [2925–2926]
ÿ ·
®_¯ + =
> "$# , =# _
%.
15) [2959–2960]
|##
¤ ·_ _
¯
^ = ^ $
_ << ¤ ·
#\<.
16) [2980–2982]
¹
% ¿ "¤ = "#\,
©
>
¤ \" $
\_ ,
+ #" %, +
\ .
279
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
17) [3024–3025]
|##’ <
=,
## "$
$
"\#
$
.
18) [3062–3063]
¹
% @\
$,
^= ’ Ü
¬ .
19) [3101–3104]
¹
%
< _ <$ \#
}$# ¿ =
\
@}\#
@_= Ú $ <¯
.
< _
^
}#=.
20) [3497–3515]
²+
,
,
# , ## ,
% #,
% º$,
¡#\#, º®\#,
_\%,
# %
_ $
,
%
%,
<<
_ .
+ =##
, <
%
@ "$´,
+
} $
%
@< $%.
#=
> #
,
> #> # ,
<# $< ·}%, ## @
$ ,
"
> ,
> <.
< =\#<
@<
$
<
< }
=¬ .
##
> ##$_ Ú _ } ,
=
¤ ,
"%_ ,
__ , # , $%.
#¯
> ® , Ú , =,
Ú ·
>
Ü #= ¨
$ <
¤ Ê $_ _ } < ;
Text 41
Inc. @
@[ $@[ (ff. 206v l. 2–207v)
later hand has attributed the text to Mark Eugenikos: ° ~ } }
_.
+ < @
^ = ^
>
> ^
> Ã<
¤
^
%
¯ }%¤ ##’ ##
@
^ Á^,
< _
^
.
’ \ +
# =
_ =
¤ ~=
$
>
¯ $
% "#
\% û
¤ @
\
280
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
¡
Ä ¡
\, ý #\ ¤ < ®>.13 | " ©" @" ´ ¨
(Prov. 22:28), <
Á ##^
##
> ^
> Ã<
^ = ^
> @
+ @
^,
+ ##
>
¯ $ #<¨ @
^
> + @
> ^
> Ã<,
+
^ Á^ .
@
*<$´ %Î \´
Î @ \´ @
^
,
\
@
¯ $
^
¨ <
= ~ Á> ¤
Á @
³
, ##’ @
, =
, @
^
> >
, }
+ ’ Á^ ##¬
14 @
*<$ }¬
#.15
(207r)
$
$
> ^
> Ã<
@
^ Á^¨ ¤
¤
¤ @ $
^ Á^ @
^ Á^ _ .
Ù
¤ @
@
¯ Ê %
^ <$
¨ \
}
^ , \® _<$, _
Ê %
^ Á^¨
, $
\%, =, @
> ’ Á^
>
^
> Ã< @ =, = \, ’ $ + "
¹
% ¬% @
> + @ =, ’ Á^ +
$ _< =¨
>
< #< @}’ ¡
´ $¨ _ ~
¤
¤ #\
¤ $
#" . % ¹
%
> ^
> Ã< } @
>
@ = ~#<\%. #\<
+ @
>
>
^ ¿ Á^¨
¤ < Á^ #\<
¤ Ú
¨ ¤
¤ @
^¨
^
} @
>
^ Á^
$ #% ©
~
> Á> < ¬,
>
> ^
> Ã< @ . ¹
% $% ¨ (207v)
> ^
> Ã<
@
@
^ @
, © @
~
¬. +
^ <%
\% ¿
¤ Û =
^
. < Á^,
¤ >
>
\
$ ¬ .
\%
> ^
> Ã< @
^
>
< @ \=, #\< +
> ¿
^ Á^, Ú } ~
#¨ µ"16 ° < <
}
X`` °
(Gal. 4:6).17 @
^ Á^ +
> ¿ #\< , Ú <, ·
@
13
Cf. Mark Eug. Testimonia spiritum sanctum ex patre procedere probantia 77; Cyril. Alex.
Ep. ad Ioannem Antiochenum, PG 77, 180D.
14
##¬
cod.
15
Cf. Mark Eug. Testimonia spiritum sanctum ex patre procedere probantia 78; Athan.
Sermo contra latinos; PG 28, 285.
16
@
# cod.
17
Cf. Acta Graecorum concilii Florentini II, 6, 342 (~ }\).
18
#" cod.
19
Cf. Acta Graecorum concilii Florentini II, 7, 379 (~ }\).
281
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
Text 48
A florilegium, inc. *>@/ #$/ (f. 238r–247r)
#Ò
, + <¤> Ñ=,
#Ñ"
@
ò· ~Ó% < @
> Ô
_ò #×<
¤ = × ×
<=>
}Ó#% ¤ #" .
[10.] |$ @%
=
+
< =
@
@ ·##´
#%,
+
, }¨ “· <
Á
^
=
¬
, ##’ < .”
[11.] |Ô
ò @ }#Óø ¹
@_=> < × ¤ @}ÑÕ·
<
> @_=×, ##
¤ }#Ó.
[12.] Á @}
Ô_ =Ñ Á }
Ò%, <Ñ# ^ Ñ<.
[13.] |
\# ¿ ¨ “~ ¤ Ë % + #\< = ¿ .
[14.] |
\# }¨ ~ @ ´20 =¬ <}% #¬ _
@
_ =#
$´
$ _\
¯ > ©#.
[15.] |_Ó ~
µ Ó% "# = Ñ
>
|=Ó _× , }¨ “ý
³ Ñ ×= ý
^ =Ñ
·} # .”
[16.] (239r) |_ ~ = @%
= $
$ Á ·=%
#^
, }· “©
×
# , ##
##
<=.”
[17.] |> _
¤ @ #×< <%Ó
.
20
@ ´] @´ cod.
282
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
Ó_ "Ñ
, ##’
<×
.”
[21.] |#Ò Ë
å
Ê> <> }= × }¨ “
×"
Ê> #Ô }= × .”
[22.] |#Ò å <^ ##%Ò }· “ + >
,
#Ñ, + >
Ô, ¤ "Ñ .”
[23.] \#
Á \ ## ý #$.
[24.] # ## >
^ #\<
ý
¨ < ·
#\=
_=\
ý # _=\
.
[25.] #Ò }×
> Ñ . ^ <Ñ @
~ ·_%.
[26.] (239v) "$% @$
©
@_
%
·=% }$#.
[27.] Ò#
#Ó= "# , ý ¯ #×<.
[28.] \#
^
_ =$,
¯ = $ <
Ñ".
[29.] ¯ Ó ~^ Ô
Ô
= Ñ
.
[30.] #Ô%
¤ Ó Á > ·# # < ¿.
[31.] = ^ · "_Ô#<.
[32.] "^ ~ + @
_Ë Á×, ~ +
_Ë å# =<
Ò.
[33.] Ô, < × <¤ }Ò .
[34.] ¤
Î ´ \
¤
¯ ®_¯ }$ @}$ .
[35.] #¤
}¨ “> + , \< + #.”
[36.] } ¬
¤ û}¨
> + < => \#
,
&
.”
[39.] =\ } ©
Á21 #
> ^ ^
.
[40.] (240r) }¨ “
# #\ ý
³ <#
Õ _.”
[41.] =\ @ $´ >
> ## ##^
}¨ “
^
@} © ## ,
^
@## .”
[42.] > ©
¤ } ³22 } .
[43.] =\ @%
= $,
$ # @ "$´, }¨“#= }$#% @
_$.”
[44.] _$ = ¤ " , ## $, @ “ ¿,
>
}¬
,
Ó
Ò
@^.”
[45.] =\ @%
= Ê
“
¯ º
¯ <Ò;” }¨ “
>
<
> #Ò #$ #.”
[46.] <\ ~ > }#}
Ô# @Ñ#
<
> Ó%
¹
%\.
21
cod.
22
cod.
283
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
[47.] <\ = Ñ ×# <Ñ# Ô# _ }· “# Ó
#
·=%, _ ## _#
’ ##¬#% _ .
[52.] (240v) õ "#
,
# ^
$
_ $ ^
@
$.
[53.] ´ ¤ "
¤
¤ _ , ## ¤ @$ ¬
> < @
Î
#\ <\
.
[67.] ¢ Ó
_^ Ò @
,
_^ +
}Ô<.
[68.] Ô
+
#<% Á <Ó,
+ @Ó
ò
Á ##Ó.
23
@®¬ cod.
24
cod.
25
_$ cod.
26
}< cod.
284
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
%.”
[76.] ¥
@%
= $,
$ #
<=, }¨ “
_$ .”
[77.] ¥
@%
= $,
$ @
< º¬
, }¨ “
>
<#
¯,
+ $%
Î #<´.”
[78.] ¸\% @%
= $,
$ ~ $%, }¨ “~
> + Ê<¬,
¤ + ®_¤
û,
¤ + } $
.
[79.] # $
_ }¨ “@ ##×<´
#Ò< ¤ @
ò .
< # Ó
#Ò< Û®
}Ò
.
[80.]
_$ _¬, ¤ }$%
Á @_=$.
[81.] #>
> ® ^ ©
#} #
#\<
, +
"#
.
[82.] (242r) # $} @
Î ¶#$, ©
, “ < ,
}$, _ .”
[83.]
=
^ ¾ $ ¨
> + < Ä
}$#,
> +
#
Ê"
,
> + =o
*
,
> +
@ #\<_ .
[84.] # $%, ## ¤ = .
[85.] $% _ <¯ Ê_ , =Ë < ¬ ý
ý
%.
[86.] µ% @%
= $, ’ ¦
$
^ <%
$_ @# %, ¿ ¨
“ "#\%
# +
%.”
[87.] µ% >
> #× #Ò<
¨ “·% Ù
,” ¿< >, “·%
Ó #Ñ.”
[88.] °
¬ ¤
$Õ
Î }$#´ , }"=Õ
> < \=
@_=.
[89.] ° _
@ Î
% <#
#"
.
[90.] °¤ } ^< _$ =¨ < >
<#
^
¿.
[91.] °¤ ¾ $Õ }$#´ _
¨ < Ú %.
[92.] ° } ¾ ÓÕ· ¤ <
Ô_
> Ò## ×
.
27
×] × Ó <
^ = ^·”
$ Ò<
· “
×· Gnom. Vat. 320.
28
cod.
29
#} #å
] #} #å
@#Ò< = Corpus Par. 5.55.
285
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
[93.] °¤ ¬
[< \=]
<<× <Ó< = Ú =Ò# , ## =Ò# Ú
< × <Ó
.
[94.] (242v) °+ }$# ^ @
Õ \_
\
}$#¨ # <
> + < \=
^
Ü @ $
<\< .
[95.] °¬
^ ~#$ø, ¬
}#<´ _ @
[ ].
[96.] °¤
_ ## ¨ · < @}$ .
[97.] >
<\
=
@
.
[98.] $ }¨ “ #> \30
#\< =, +
¬}
31 =.”
[99.] Î }#´ }
$¨ “ @ ## #\< ¾#$<, ##’ @ ¾#$<
##.”
[100.] > = ^ ~ }, =$ > Ê_¤ = ^.
[101.] , } ~ }#} -
#$%¨ ~ +
# _%#> Û
#Ó @ Ó´ Ò% · ~ , } }· “Ñ
# $· _%#> + < < Ò=, }#×} + .”
[102.] ,=$ @%
= ,
$ \<
ʯ_
Î %
, “
^
,” }, “©
@ <= }Ô#
¤ Û®
Î.”
[103.] ,=$ @ =\ \ (243r) # @=
¤ %
\ ÷ }¨ “_ = Õ, <, Õ, ##’ = =³.”
[104.]
#$´ _< ý _ + }\
^ =# ¹%
@_\
.
[105.]
## }" > ## }"
.
[106.] Âû
· ~#$, ¹
#^
_%
¯ _ ¬.
[107.] Âû
´ _% _#^ û
#Ô
_% #<^
¯
$.
[108.]
}#<Ô% "Ó ~ Ù# % Ê> <¯ \
%
}$ .
[109.] Â
> \ =
} _, ##
> ’ _
Ó Ò =
Û .
[110.] Â$ }¨ “~$ }
^ = @
$, ¹
% ~ #<.”
[111.]
@%
= $,
$ @
·
=, }¨ “
> =
.”
[112.] ¹
=# > ¹%, ¹
$
®_¤
.
[113.] Â$ ~ ## ""#$
, }¨ “¤
³ "%
Î ##
Î
¬= .”
[114.] ÂÊ Ã#
> "$ ¬<< ·=% , û’ ·_
\#
_.
[115.] Â
"$ Ê ·# @ $.
[116.] Ì
Î ¾
¤ $=
,
> (243v) @ ºøÓ% @Ó
.
30
\ functions as a direct object here.
31
¬}
cod.
286
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
> ~ °
# }¨ “ \## , ¤ #\< ¨
_Ë <
< #=¬Õ.”
[133.] £=< }¬
Î
> “#$ @
,” }¨ “ <
#
+ \ #}\#,
+ <#\ "#" .”
[134.] £#
_ #
\
$
^
_ ¨ @ +
¯ <
%}, @ +
¯ <#
<¬, @ +
^ .
[135.] £#
% ~ }> Ë < +
%
¤ <¤ $
#
@ = _ $ ·
@=$
¹% $
“ ,” }¨ “ ¹
%
< Ð$
, ¹
%
<
@ $ .
[136.] £## }$#
$
##
#$ Á^
¨ +
}$ ¬
.
[137.] (244v) £= Ã
> +
_\% <% "¬=
,
> + _´
_ $
.
[138.] £#32 ~ ° ¬ =
<
¿ ¨ “¾®+
< .”
[139.] £
@
= @
@$ ¡
>
<%$ .
32
£ cod.
287
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
¬.
[159.] #
%
}$#% = + < \, +
$%
@ #.
33
cod.
34
$% cod.; the sigma was added by a later hand.
288
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
[160.] ³ <³ $
ý
"
, Ù
$% ¤ #\.
[161.] ¯ $ _^
> #> @
´
$.
[162.] (246r) > % ·®, Ú } ¸
, ## ·#
.
[163.] ¬
+ $ $, ~ + #<> %
.
[164.] + }$# $% + @$ ,
’ $ + =\
.
[165.] =% Á +
>
=
% =, Á +
_
.
[166.] <$% $ < ~
##
#<.
[167.] /" ¿ #
= }$#
Ä=
}$#%.
[168.] ¶$#
_^
_^ ~
> =.
[169.] ¶ < + }#$,
+ <= _=.
[170.] ¶$# ¤ < _ $¨ <
}#$ @
"\".
[171.] ¶
_$ Ú
## _$
,
_ + } .
[172.] ¶#<$ @
= .
[173.] ¶$# #=¤ ~ % @
}
}$#.
[174.] ¶# @=#> #< , û
<=¤ #<
"#}$ #$
.
[175.] ²¤
> Á> ^# ¿
^
> ý
> \
¨ ~ + < }
^
> ^# @
$, ~ + ´.
[176.] ² # < ¨ “
> (246v) <
¤ #¬= _> @
=
.”
[177.] ²
> ·=% > < .
[178.] ²$#% @%
= $,
$ @
#
, }¨ “
> < ¡
.”
[179.] ²$ _
## ¤ _$
.
[180.] ²> #^ }#}$ ®\<
@
.
[181.] ²¤
}^
+
¯ }#$ ʬ
\
} % @# $} ,
+
¯ _=
<#
¤
_$
}$ .
[182.]
_¯ \< _# @
~ ^.
[183.]
$= "# · ¤ \_¨ < $
^
¨ Ú <
·##% ò
Ñ#® Ó, ¹
%
Ê> ^
# <× ¡
Ò =ò .
[184.]
^ @
# _=+ # $
_
¤ @
\´ #<´
#¬= @ \.
[185.]
^ ©
=\#Õ
=¯, @ ¤ òÕ = \# #= $,
.
[186.]
#= _$.
[187.] þ =
>
> }, ¹
% ò +
¤ ¾<¤ _
=Ñ
, ©
%} @Ó
.
[188.] þ
¤ \#
> \
, ## (247r)
> >
^ \#
}# , ¹
% }$# ¤ ’ @$# ³, ##
¤ û
<.
289
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
Text 49
A short chronicle, inc. @ (f. 247r)
%Ç ¹
< <\
Ì
¡¬
¾
¨ }’ +
Ì @<\
_" \_
¯ ,\ " %.
Text 53
Views on the soul, inc. / @ >/ (ff. 254r–256v)
35
# cod.
36
12] ¦ cod.
37
÷] ÷ cod.
290
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
ý _ . ^ +
·## + ·##% >
¤ @
_ $.
+
< ^ _ ¹
% \#%
®_ %¨ Á + %
¾<% @
#\_ Ä
#
¤
¤ $ @\<
# , ¤
^ %
^ $ ¾<. =
"#"\
@$
^ ¾< \ \<
. Á + _% ¾< } @ < ,
¯ #<¯ %¯ .
3 $¨ <%
¤ + ^, ¾
¤ +
=\#,
3 ÷ "#.
Á + 3 ¾<%, Á + }
$, }
#$% Ê$
.
Á +
¯ #< %¯ }
+ ÷ $,
=
¤
¤
^
~$ <
¬.38
3 #<%, (255r) Á + <%
$, Á + ¾
$, Á +
~
$. <%
\, =
39 }
$, ¬. ¹
%
=
¬, }
¬,
¬,
¬. ¾
+ => @=$,
¹
% => @=
. ~
\
$%
^
¬, >
"
¬,
¤
}%
¬.
+ ÷ }
}
\ _ ,
3 ·#< Î
}
_
}
##,
+
\
¯ #< %¯.
+
¤ =
¤ ©, ¬, Û}, < ^ *}¬. +
#<¤ ®_¤
}
_
#< }
ý
·#<,
+
#\
#< \.
+ ÷
÷ ®_¤ =
Î
+ @ <
,
##
+
#< ,
+
·## }
.
}
¬ +
^
+
·##
(255v) 3 ¾<%
@ < @ < ,
+
#< , ##
^
}
Ú @ ¿
¤ ^ @\< >
¹ } ,
} +
¤ _%\ @\< .
> < ~ ^ <
<
~# <
^
Ù
=¬ .
Õ
¹ ##
40 @$% ~ £#
% @#
¤
%¬¨ ¾
38
<
¬] <
¬ cod.
39
] + cod.
40
##
] #
cod.
41
] cod.
42
##<\] #<\ cod.
291
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
292
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
Text 57
On entelechy, inc. *
(f. 278r–v)
#\_ 43 <\% +
^ @
#^ _ #\<
, Ä<
>
@
#+ ,
#
^ <
=’ ¦
> @
#+ _
> <, =’ ¦
\# @
¿
> <¨ > ·=% @
#\_ ,
>
¬
" <
# <
, ##’
@ @
#\_ 44 @
·=% ~
=
_= Ú
>
=% ¿
# %= $. ©=
¤ ®_¤ @
#\_ ~$
^
}^ ¾<^ %¤ _
, _ ©
45 @\< @
(278v) ®_¬, ##’ ©
’ @ $
#
Î. #
’ @
#\_
^
# $ @\< ,
> ’
# $ @\< ¨
<
# $% Á
@\<
\# ,
#
# . @
#\_ + #\<
# $
@\< , Ú
> @
#+ _ ¹
Ú @
#
¤
¯ @_ $, Ä<
# %
¤
¯ %¨
_
+ *# #\<
@\< @
#\_
=’ ©
@ <^ $%
$ @ < $
¤ ¡
^
},
# $ }
#¤
^
> . $
@
#\_ #\<
, Ä< *# @\< .
Text 60
Pythagorean categories, inc.
+ @
/ (f. 279r–v)
<`>
_$
@ ^ Á =< \
> =, }’
<
Û
Ú \ _¨ <=> – , \ –
· ,
> – ·
, <> – <>#¯=, (279v) <> >46 –
, <}>47 –
, <·> – <=>¯#, <Ð> ^ –
<> , < >= – <>Ô#, <
>
Ñ<% – <¡>
× .
43
#\_ ]
#\_ + cod.
44
@
#\_ ] @
#\_ cod.
45
_ ©
] Ú supra ©
cod.
46
<> >] | > cod.
47
<}>] cod.
293
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
# @
¾
, Á
%
%
% ¬ #\<
_
¨ <=>
– <®>_
, <Ê><
– <>
,
<>}
– <">
, <>#
– <>#
, <<>#_
–
<>
, <#>
– <
>_
, <#>
– <>_
,
<>
– <>
. <>\
$, =
, ¡"
,
%
¨ {
> + ¯,
> + #
¯,
> +
. <õ> \
¨
<%,
$<%, º",
\, <>#.
Text 61
<>@V
/,
@[
(ff. 279v–
280v)
<>$#V %
·<¨ #$. · (?)¨ } .
Ã#¨ . ·
¨ _%$.
#¨ Á
. Ã% (= _%?)¨ #"%.
= ¨ ##
.
\¨ <¯. <>
=
¨ $
.
<%>j@* "¨
.
_¬ #<_. _$
¨
$_ .
<¨ #=.
¨ ¿. %j @
}# ¨
. \¨ .
û#¨ #}.
<> ¨ %ô.
@\ ¨ #\< . $¨ ~ < .
$_ ¨ . \=¨ ¿.
¬¨ ®_¬. \#¨
.
<> |
·¨ $}.
¨
.
=¬< ¨ . }¨ ¾}. ¾} + #\<
Á ®$
¨ _.
> }
$, >
¯
#\
¨ #$.
@ = <¯, © } ~
#"¨ @
. £#
%.
¨ . #¨ #¯.
¿¨ . ¨ "\#.
=¬ #
.
<B>@
" ¨ }"
.
< ¨ (f. 280r) #\< . \# ¨ ʬ
.
· % ¨ Ù_. }<¨ $}.
¿¨ . _¨ <¯.
¨ ®}.
<¨ <®.
¬#¨ "
.
¨ \= . (cf. LSJ, s.v.
\%, <\%)
294
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
<>
@* ® ¨ #" .
=¨ . "¨
> .
$¨ @$#. ¨ =.
<> <^>
¿®¨
_\%. ¨ #"¤ $}. (#"¤ scripsi: ##¤
· = ¨ _%$. cod.)
"
¨ ·=%. }#=. }#.
¡¨ %. }<¨ ^.
#$¨ Ê$. <#¨ #.
$¨ \.
¨ }#¬. <>
¨
#
¨ ^#. ¨ }#.
\#=¨ $.
<^>
@ $ ¨ .
¬
¨ · . }< (< cod.)¨ =.
¬¨ }%¬.
\ ¨ ~.
¨ $. ·}%¨ }
.
@=#¨ <=. ·
¨ @
$
# ¨ ~. = ¨ Á ^#.
= ¨ = . ¨ @#$%.
_# (_¯# cod.)¨ "%
. ¨ $.
¨
_\%. ¯
¨ "
$.
##\¨ "_$ , Á <#. } ¨ Á
.
<> <=>*>
/
^¨ . "#¨ ~ .
\¨ . }#$¨
.
º ¨ <.
<^># %$ #¨ @
@## =¬
<
¨ =¬ }\
%. (scr. #¬%.
<
; cf. Hsch. s.v., Etym.magn.
"^¨ ~
¬
s.v. <%
)
% .
#¨ \%. _#¨ ~ %
=.
¨ ©#. "#¨
> <#.
# ¨ #$=. @<
¨ ~
.
_=¨ .
#$
¨ $
.
}
¨ · . #¨
Ù.
%
#¨ Ä<
\
^+ "#.
#¨ ~
}#. }¨
<}\ }#$
º
\.
(280v) <^>@
$
%(?)¨
#.
¨ #=\. ##
¨ @}¬.
·#<¨ ¾. %
¨
>
,
>
·#_¨ <¬.
¯ @
=\.
\¨
¬.
¨ Ä< @$
.
295
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
Text 65b
A short chronicle: in the margin of f. 283v three more sultans have been
added to the list of Text 65a. The text was partly trimmed away.
~
~ # |
£<
|
@¯
° =%%. |
\
Á
|
~ # # |
£ |
#. |
\
|
Á
~ # |
#
~ @ |
Text 66
A geomantic treatise, inc. ^ º#$ \= (ff. 283v–285v)
For this text, see Chapter 5.
Text 81
A formulary, inc.
Î ø | Papae |
Î *<%
´ %
´, etc. (ff.
320r–323r)
For this text, see Chapter 5.
296
Appendix 2: Codicological table
Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8, (olim Sparwenfeldt 49, olim Escorialensis . VI. 16)
A composite with miscellaneous contents.
Paper, ff. iii + 342 + iii, 135 x 90 mm, Crete? ca. 1480.
^ <# ²
¢% < Rhet
)
Inc. Â+
$ =$. Expl. ¤ *
%#Î
%=ò
. The text does not include the full introduction and
breaks off early; cf. PG 59, 486–488a). CPG 4001 and 4570.
29. John Chrysostom [dub.], Sermon without a title (
^ 189v–190v (PhTh)/
^) spec
Inc.
¤ $. Expl. _ Ù
Á <
^.
CPG 4878; see the edition, p. 186.
30. Marc Eugenikos, Thoughts (
^ *<$ ° 190v–192v Q27: [192–199] quaternion Scissors PhTh
^ #<^.
PG 95, 92D–93B. CPG 8111.
35. Sayings by Maximos, Demosthenes, et al. 195v–196r Prac
Inc. ^ *<$ °$
¯ ®_¯.
Expl. Ê
= . See Appendix 1.
36a–b. Isidore of Pelousion, Epp. , 390 and , 167. 196r–v Rhet
(a. ¥å
^ £#å
@
#¬. b.
^
^)
a. Inc. |$ #$. b. Inc. > _ _$
.
PG 78, 401 and 292f.
37. Three short sayings. 196v Prac
_ < ¤
_^ Á }\.
°¬ =
_
Î "$´.
Ì }#}$¨ #\
=
.
38. A gnomology derived from Constantine Manasses’ 197r–199v Prac
Synopsis Chronike.
Inc. ¹
% +
¯ =^. Expl. _ } < .
See Appendix 1. Cf. LAMPSIDES 1996.
39. An owner’s note? name:
# }#
199v
and the phrase _
...
can be seen.
Cf. No. 87, below.
ABFGJL
(M)
U7 40. George Gemistos Plethon, Reply to the Treatise in Sup- 200r–206v Q28: [200–207] quaternion Anchor PhTh
port of the Latin Doctrine
Inc. > Ê+ µ
$% ""#$. Expl.
"# \ ¡#\=.
PG 160, 975–980.
41. Mark Eugenikos, On the filioque doctrine (no author or 206v–207v PhTh
title given by main scribe; ° ~ } }
_ added by a later hand)
Inc.
+ < @
^ = ^. Expl.
> + <
,
> + @
. See Appendix 1.
ABFJO
U8 42. <John Tzetzes, Book of Histories> excerpts 208r–223v Q29: [208–215] quaternion Oxhead Narr/
a. (f. 208r ll.1–17) Chil. , hist. 3, 140–159. Q30: [216–223] quaternion Oxhead Rhet
b. (f. 208r l. 18–208v l. 9) Chil. ², hist. 316, 167–177
c. (ff. 208v l. 10–209r l. 13) Chil. ², hist. 361, 962–987
d. (f. 209r l. 13–209v l. 5) Chil. ², hist. 368, 90–101
e. (ff. 209v l. 6–210r l. 2) Chil. , hist. 34, 65 and 68–105
f. (ff. 210r l. 3–212v l. 8) Chil. I, hist. 27, 703–808
g. (ff. 212v l. 9–216v) Chil. I, hist. 32, 851–II, 18
h. (f. 217r ll. 1–5) Chil. I, hist. 28, 809–814
i. (ff. 217r l. 6–223v) Chil. IV, 471–779 (letter to John Lacha-
nas). Ed. LEONE 1968.
ABCEJL
N
U9 43. <Theophylact Simokates, Epp. 1, 3–4, 9–10, 13–19, 26, 224r–231v Q31: [224–229] ternion; same no wm Rhet
29, 34, 37, 46, 60–61, 66> kind of paper as in Q28?
Ed. ZANETTO 1985. Q32: [230–237] quaternion Oxhead
44. The Decalogue 232r PhTh
Cf. LXX, Deut. 6:5; Exod. 20.
45. Lists of kings (Jewish patriarchs and kings; Chaldean, 232r–233v Prac
Persian, and Assyrian kings; Egyptian kings; Roman emperors)
Inc. £
|". Expl.
~
^ <# %
-
$
¬.
^= Á
²
"# .
46. Anonymous, <Carmen Paraeneticum, stanzas 1–20, 6> 234r–237v Rhet
Inc.
"# ^ ~ #Ë # #<. Expl. ©
$# @\ ’ @#$.
Ed. LUNDSTRÖM 1902.
47. A short epigram 237v Rhet/
#"Ë
$
Ê> _ | }" @ \_ Prac
#< ¨ | ¹
< \_
_ , |
+ ¬ \ .
ABK
U10 48. A florilegium 238r–247r Q33: [238–245] quaternion Oxhead Prac
Inc. |#\ @%
= $,
% @=. Expl.
Q34: [246–253] quaternion Oxhead
\ Á . See Appendix 1.
49. A short chronicle 247r Narr/
Inc. % ¹
. Expl. \_
¯ ,\ " %. Prac
See Appendix 1.
50. A lexicon of synonyms 247v–253r Prac
Inc. |##
¨ Ê®
¤ }%¬. Expl. }$.
51. Michael Choniates, Elegy on Athens (
$_
^ 253r–v Rhet
}%
#$
|= ^ °_¤#
^ ²%
@
³ _
´
¬ # % |=)
Ed. MERCATI 1935; LAMPROS 1879–80, II, 397f.
52. Anonymous, <Carmen Paraeneticum, stanza 17> 253v Rhet
Inc. Á }#}. Expl.
^ #< =\
.
Cf. Text 46, above.
ABE
U11 53. Anonymous, Views on the soul 254r–256v Q35: [254–261] quaternion Oxhead PhTh
Inc. Í + _ ®_¯. Expl. + ¤ Õ
<¬
. See Appendix 1.
54. Two short sayings 256v Prac
°¬ =
_
Î "$´.
Ì }#}$¨
^ =
#\
.
Cf. Text 37, above.
55. Anonymous, A prose paraphrase of Gregory of Nazian- 257r-261v (PhTh)/
zos’ poem On Virtue (Carm. mor. I. 2, 9) Rhet
Inc. £= + @
¯
¯. Expl. \ @ $ }%
#=¬
.
Ed. SEARBY 2003a.
AE
U12 56. <Theodoret of Kyrros, Cure of the Pagan Maladies> 262–278r Q36: [262–269] quaternion Oxhead PhTh
Four longer excerpts: Thdt, Affect 4.5–16; 4.32–42; 5.8–52; and Q37: [270–277] quaternion Oxhead
6.11–26. Q38: [278–285] quaternion Oxhead
Ed. CANIVET 1958.
57. Anonymous, On entelechy 278r–v PhTh
Inc.
#\_ + <\%. Expl. Ä< *#
@\< . See Appendix 1.
58a–b. Two epigrams, AP IX 359–360 278v–279r Rhet
a. <Posidippus>, AP IX 359. Inc. < > < + Ó .
b. <Metrodoros> (
^
^), AP IX 360. Inc. £
Ó
"×
Ñ".
Ed. BECKBY 1968.
59. Sayings of the Seven Sages (heading in a later hand: 279r Prac
#<
}
)
Inc. <>$ ~ £ ¨ Á # $ $. õxpl. <~>
Ò "
.
Cf. TZIATZI-PAPAGIANNI 1994, 444.
60. Anonymous, Pythagorean categories 279r–v PhTh
Inc. <`>
_$
@ ^. Expl. º",
\,
<>#. See Appendix 1. Similar enumerations of opposites
are found in many works and commentaries in the Aristotelian
tradition. Cf. also Arist. Metaph. 986a, 23–26; Hero, Geom. 3,
18–22.
61. A dialectal lexicon (<> <#
# ,
279v–280v Prac
#^
<#%¬
)
Inc. <|>=%¨ ·<¨ #$. Expl.
¨ Ä<
@$
. See Appendix 1.
62. Lists of patriarchates, sees etc. (heading in a later hand: 281r–282v Prac
_ #
# _ )
Inc. £# , \ . Expl. # $ ¥$.
For similar lists, see DARROUZÈS 1981.
63. List of inventors (heading in a later hand:
\_
283r Prac
}
)
Inc. ^ @ ^ #
¬. Expl.
_ $ #.
64. A short chronicle from Adam to Justinian 283r–v Prac
Inc. `
> | %
^
#^. Expl.
^
<# ¥
^
.
65a. Lists of Palaiologan emperors and sultans 283v Prac
Inc. £
£##< °_¬#. Expl. @} = Ê>
|<.
65b. A short chronicle (marginal note in a later hand) 283v
Inc. ~
~ #
£<
. Expl.
}6
_^
<
= ... ~ # . See Appendix 1.
66. A geomantic treatise, The method of ramplion 283v–285v (Prac)/
Inc. ^ º#$ \=. Expl.
> + spec
<. See the edition, p. 218.
ABHJLM
O
U13 67. Basil the Great, Ep. 2 (^ @ *<Ó
> 286r–290v Q39: [286–293] quaternion traces of Rhet
# $ *_ $ $
^ wm on
<# ~#$ > <
> #<¨ £ "$ 288.
%). Inc. Ò<%
¤ @
#ò. (crown?)
CPG 2900. Ed. COURTONNE 1953.
68. Libanios and Basil the Great, Correspondence (
- 290v–297r Q40: [294–301] quaternion Rhet
# "
^ µ"$ >
> \< $# )
Epp. Lib.-Bas. 7; 1; 15–22; 2–6; 8–9; 13–14; 10–12 (numbering
according to Foerster’s edition).
CPG 2900. Ed. FOERSTER 1922, 11, 572–597.
69. Gregory of Nazianzos Ep. 236 (µ"$´ <) 297r Rhet
Inc. £
¤
\} .
CPG 3032. Ed. GALLAY 1967.
70. Basil the Great, Epp. 330, 332, 186 and 187 297r–v Rhet
CPG 2900. Ed. COURTONNE 1961–66.
71a–b. Josephus, The Jewish War, excerpts 297v–299v Narr/
a. <$ $
Á^ Â ^ (BJ 3, 472–484). Inc. (Rhet)
@ @×´
# . Expl. #Ò
=å .
b. <$ ¥%¬ (BJ 3, 361–382). Inc. <> Ó +
¤
}. Expl. Ó% }Ò% =Ó.
Ed. PELLETIER 1980.
72. Nikephoros Gregoras, A letter to Metochites (
#¤ 299v–301v Rhet
< >
> }
#<=\
#
¤
¯
$) Cf. Nik. Greg., Hist. I. 322, 19 – 327, 5.
Inc. < > + @Ó Ã
. Expl. Ù Á -
#ò . Ed. BEKKER & SCHOPEN 1855.
ABDEJL
U14 73. <Leo VI, Canticum compunctionis> 302r–303v Q41: [302–307] quaternion Oxhead (PhTh)/
Inc. æ
$ <¯= $. Expl. Ú ·_ # . minus 6th and 7th leaf Rhet
Ed. CICCOLELLA 1989; MATRANGA 1850, II, 683–688.
74. <Constantine Sikeliotes, An anacreontic poem> 303v–305r (Narr)/
Inc. |> #=%. Expl. Ú }%
Rhet
#%.
Ed. MONACO 1951; MATRANGA 1850, II, 689–692.
75. Pen trials and an owner’s note. 305v–307v
Cf. p. 101, above.
ABFGKL
MO
U15 76. Three Psalms, in Latin and supralinear Greek 308r–314v Q42: [308–315] quaternion Oxhead PhTh
a. Ps. 32 (=LXX, Ps. 31) Beati quorum remissae sunt /
°Ñ { }Ò= Á Ó.
b. Ps. 38 (=LXX, Ps. 37) Domine ne in furore tuo / Ô , ¤
Î =Î .
c. Ps. 51 (=LXX, Ps. 50) Miserere mei Deus / #Ò× , ~
×.
77. <Ausonius, De institutione viri boni> 315r–v Rhet/
Inc. Vir bonus et sapiens. Expl. palmam et praemia victis (sic). Prac?
Ed. CLAUSEN 1966; PRETE 1978 (under the title: ²VI ‘De viro
bono’ %
"| X>").
78. Later note 315v
Inc. Ë + <+
} (sic). Cf. p. 105, above.
79. Liturgical texts, in Latin and supralinear Greek 316r–318r Q43: [316–323] quaternion Oxhead PhTh
a. Ave Maria / ² °$. b. Pater Noster / £
¤ .
c. Credo in unum Deum / £
% = .
80. A psalm, in Latin and supralinear Greek 318v–319v PhTh
Ps. 6 Domine ne in furore tuo / Ô , ¤
Î =Î.
81. A formulary, in Latin and supralinear Greek 320r–323r (Prac)/
Inc. Papae /
Î ø. Expl. honorato viro domino / @
$´ spec
$´. See the edition, p. 242.
82. Later notes (alphabets) 323r–v
83. An arithmetic problem (incomplete; added by a later 323v
hand) Inc. ¬#
. Expl. _% <. \
Cf. p. 107, above.
ABFGJL
O
U16 84. Mathematical problems, part one 324r–328r Q44: [324–331] quaternion traces of Prac
Inc. ¿
###$
9
10. Expl. ¹ wm on
}#
¤ $ ¡> ¡
. 324 and
Ed. SEARBY 2003b. 331 (hat?)
85. Later notes 328r–329r
Pen trials; an indecent(?) microtext; a proverb on friendship.
Cf. p. 107, above.
86. Mathematical problems, part two 329v–331r Prac
Inc. =\# = ~ . õxpl. + @" ¡
\ #=\.
Ed. SEARBY 2003b.
87. A note 331v
_
(cf. No. 39, above).
ABCFGJ
LMO
U17 88a–b. Life of Aesop and Aesopian Fables 332r–336v Q45: [332–336] ternion where traces of Narr/
a. “Vita III” (Ed. EBERHARD 1872, 309f.; Cf. PERRY 1952, the last leaf has been cut out wm on (Prac)
212f., “Testimonium 1a”). 332
b. 59 fables (numbered according to HAUSRATH & HUNGER): and 334
Fab. 1 (first half), inc. |
> #, expl. =
% +
.
Vita W, 93–100, inc. ©% , expl. <%\
# $
.
Fab. 1 (second half), inc.
>
, expl.
%$
}
.
Fab. (HAUSRATH & HUNGER) 2–4; 9–10; 16–20; 22–23; 27;
284; 283; (PERRY) 275; (HAUSRATH & HUNGER) 42; 29; 24;
11; 21; 28; 12–13; 44; 43; 45; 47; 49–50; 60; 57; 52–53; 58;
64; 66–67; 69; 239; 270; 184; 81; 76; 208; 100; 103; 289; 285;
115; A1; 116–117; 120; 126; 288; 146–147. The last fable
(inc. #\% <) is truncated, expl. _ ##["Ñ%
etc.].
Ed. HAUSRATH & HUNGER 1956 and 1970; PERRY 1952.
Bibliography
Bibliography
ADLER, ADA, ed. Suidae Lexicon: Lexicographi Graeci. Vol. 1.1–1.4. Leipzig:
Teubner, 1928–1938.
AGAPITOS, PANAGIOTIS A. “7 =\
=
¬
$ « \ »
$
"
¬ #<
_$.” In: ODORICO & AGAPITOS 2002. 185–232.
—. “Genre, Structure and Poetics in Byzantine Vernacular Romances of Love.”
Symbolae Osloenses 79:1 (2004): 5–98.
ALDAMA, JOSÉ ANTONIO DE. Repertorium pseudochrysostomicum. Documents,
études et répertoires 10. Paris: CNRS, 1965.
ALEXIOU, MARGARET. The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition. London: Cambridge
UP, 1974.
ANDRÉS, GREGORIO DE. “Relaciones de los incendios del monasterio de El Escori-
al.” Documentos para la historia de San Lorenzo del Real de El Escorial 8
(1965): 65–136.
—. Catálogo de los códices griegos de la Real biblioteca de El Escorial. Vol. 3:
Códices 421–649. Madrid: Sucesores de Rivadeneyra, 1967.
—. Catálogo de los códices griegos desaparecidos de la Real Biblioteca de El Esco-
rial. L’Escorial: n.p., 1968.
—. El cretense Nicolás de la Torre, copista griego de Felipe II: Biografía, docu-
mentos, copias, facsímiles. Madrid, 1969.
ANGOLD, MICHAEL, ed. The Cambridge History of Christianity. Vol. 5: Eastern
Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006.
ANROOIJ, WIM VAN. “Medieval Miscellanies from the Low Countries: An Introduc-
tion.” Codices miscellanearum: Brussels Van Hulthem colloquium 1999. Ed.
Ria Jansen-Sieben & Hans van Dijk. Archives et bibliothèques de Belgique.
Numéro spécial 60. Brussels: Archives et Bibliothèques de Belgique, 1999. 19–
25.
ANTONOPOULOU, THEODORA. The Homilies of the Emperor Leo VI. The Medieval
Mediterranean 14. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
ASTRUC, CHARLES & MARIE-LOUISE CONCASTY. Catalogue des manuscrits grecs.
Vol. 3: Le supplément grec. T. 3, Nos 901–1371. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale,
1960.
ATSALOS, BASILE. La terminologie du livre-manuscrit à l’époque byzantine. Vol. 1.
8##. £
21. Thessalonica, 1971.
BAGIAKAKOS, DIKAIOS B. “¢ @#
¤ <# %¤
##¤ ¾
#<$.” Athena 63 (1959): 195–245.
BARTON, TAMSYN. Ancient Astrology. Sciences of Antiquity. London: Routledge,
1994.
BATIFFOL, PIERRE. L’Abbaye de Rossano: Contribution a l’histoire de la Vaticane.
Paris: Picard, 1891.
BAUMGARTNER, FREDERIC J. Behind Locked Doors: A History of the Papal Elec-
tions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
311
Bibliography
312
Bibliography
313
Bibliography
314
Bibliography
315
Bibliography
316
Bibliography
GALLO, ITALO. Greek and Latin Papyrology. Classical Handbook 1. London: Inst. of
Classical Studies, U of London, 1986.
GAMS, PIUS BONIFACIUS, ed. Series episcoporum ecclesiae catholicae, quotquot
innotuerunt a Beato Petro Apostolo. Regensburg: Manz, 1873.
GARNSEY, PETER. Thinking about Property: From Antiquity to the Age of Revolu-
tion. Ideas in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007.
GARZYA, ANTONIO. “Testi letterari d’uso strumentale.” JÖB 31/1 (1981): 263–271.
GEANAKOPLOS, DENO J. Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West, 1268–1282: A
Study in Byzantine-Latin Relations. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1959.
—. Greek Scholars in Venice: Studies in the Dissemination of Greek Learning from
Byzantium to Western Europe. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1962.
—. “The Library of the Cretan Humanist-Bishop, Maximos Margounios, Especially
His Collection of Latin Books Bequeathed to Mount Athos.” %
`¸^"
¯
"
3 (¯ %#<). Athens: n.p.,
1968. 75–91.
—. Byzantine East and Latin West: Two Worlds of Christendom in Middle Ages and
Renaissance. Studies in Ecclesiastical and Cultural History. Hamden, Conn.:
Archon, 1976.
—. Constantinople and the West: Essays on the Late Byzantine (Palaeologan) and
Italian Renaissances and the Byzantine and Roman Churches. Madison: U of
Wisconsin P, 1989.
—. “A New Reading of the Acta, Especially Syropoulos.” Christian Unity: The
Council of Ferrara-Florence 1438/39–1989. Ed. Giuseppe Alberigo.
Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 97. Leuven: Leuven
UP, 1991. 325–351.
GENCHEVA-MIKAMI, ISKRA. “Documentary Narrative: The Case of the Notitia Dig-
nitatum.” Abstract from the 14th conference of the Australian Association for
Byzantine Studies, Melbourne, 13–15 August 2004 [Byzantine Narrative].
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~byzaus/conferences/14th2004/abstracts.html
GILL, JOSEPH. The Council of Florence. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1959.
GLABINAS, APOSTOLOS. <
" * *
.
Thessalonica: Aristotle University, 1983.
GLEßGEN, MARTIN-DIETRICH & FRANZ LEBSANFT, eds. Alte und neue Philologie.
Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1997.
GLYKAS, MICHAEL. @ $ X
Y * Y [#*. Vol. 1. Ed. Sophronios Eu-
stratiades. Athens: Sakellarios, 1906.
GOW, ANDREW S.F. & DENYS L. PAGE. The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1965.
GRAFTON, ANTHONY. Commerce with the Classics: Ancient Books and Renaissance
Readers. Jerome lectures 20. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1997.
GRAUX, CHARLES. Essai sur les origines du fonds grecs de l’Escurial. Bibliothèque
de l’École des hautes études. Sciences historiques et philologiques 46. Paris:
Vieweg, 1880.
—. Los origenes del fondo griego del Escorial. Ed. and trans. Gregorio de Andrés.
Madrid: Fundacion Universitaria, 1982.
GRAUX, CHARLES & ALBERT MARTIN. Notices sommaires des manuscrits grecs de
Suède. (Extrait des Archives des missions, 3e série, 15). Paris: Leroux, 1889.
—. Fac-similés de manusrits grecs d’Espagne. Paris, 1891.
GREEN, DENNIS H. Medieval Listening and Reading: The Primary Reception of
German Literature 800–1300. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994.
GREEN, MONICA H., ed. The Trotula: A Medieval Compendium of Women’s Medi-
cine. The Middle Ages Series. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2001.
317
Bibliography
318
Bibliography
319
Bibliography
320
Bibliography
321
Bibliography
KRISTELLER, PAUL OSKAR. Renaissance Thought and Its Sources. New York: Co-
lumbia UP, 1979.
KRUMBACHER, KARL. Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur von Justinian bis
zum Ende des oströmischen Reiches (527–1453). HAW 9:1. Munich: Beck,
1897.
KUSTAS, GEORGE L. Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric. Analekta Vlatadon 17. Thessa-
lonica: Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, 1973.
KWAKKEL, ERIK. “Towards a Terminology for the Analysis of Composite Manu-
scripts.” Gazette du livre médiéval 41 (automne 2002): 12–19.
LAM, LAY YONG. “The Development of Hindu-Arabic and Traditional Chinese
Arithmetic.” Chinese Science 13 (1996): 35–54.
LAMARTINE, ALPHONSE DE. History of Turkey. Vol. 2. New York: Appleton, 1857.
LAMPROS, SPYRIDON. ")|
"½
"½
$ ¾ . 2 vols. Ath-
ens, 1879–80 (repr. Groningen: Bouma, 1968).
—. “°´$ =¯ @
³ *# %
# %.”
. 5
(1908): 190–269.
—. “¢ ¯ %.”
. 11 (1914): 57–93.
LAMPSIDES, ODYSSEUS.
µ
/"`
`Y
+ ¨. £<
¯ Á
Ó
##ò%
^ £×
1 (|_ £
7). Athens:
¤
£
° #
, 1975.
—. “Les ‘gnomologia’ tirés de la chronique de K. Manasses.” B 55 (1985): 118–
145.
—, ed. Constantini Manassis Breviarium chronicum. CFHB 36. Athens: Academy
of Athens, 1996.
LANGKAVEL, BERNHARD. Botanik der spaeteren Griechen: Vom dritten bis drei-
zehnten Jahrhunterte. Berlin: Berggold, 1866.
LAURENT, MARIA-HYACINTHUS & ANDRÉ GUILLOU. Le “Liber Visitationis” d’
Athanase Chalkéopoulos (1457–1458): Contribution à l’histoire du monachisme
grec en Italie méridionale. Studi e Testi 206. Vatican City: n.p., 1960.
LAUXTERMANN, MARC D. Byzantine Poetry from Pisides to Geometres. WByzSt 24.
Wien: ÖAW, 2003.
LEMAY, HELEN RODNITE, ed. Women’s Secrets: A Translation of Pseudo-Albertus
Magnus’s De Secretis Mulierum with Commentaries. SUNY series in medieval
studies. Albany: State U of New York P, 1992.
LEMERLE, PAUL. Le premier humanisme byzantin: notes et remarques sur enseigne-
ment et culture à Byzance des origines au 10e siècle. Bibliothèque byzantine.
Études 6. Paris: PUF, 1971.
LEONE, PIETRO L.M. Nicephori Gregorae epistulae. 2 vols. Matino: Tip. di Matino,
1982–83.
LEWIS, ROBERT E. Introduction. Lotario dei Segni (Pope Innocent III). De miseria
condicionis humanae. Ed. Robert E. Lewis. The Chaucer library 1. London:
Scolar P, 1980 (Athens: U of Georgia P, 1978). 1–90.
LITTA, POMPEO. Le famiglie celebri italiane. Vol. X: I Savelli di Roma. Turin: Liv-
erani, 1872.
LIVANOS, CHRISTOPHER. Greek Tradition and Latin Influence in the Work of George
Scholarios. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias P, 2006.
LOENERTZ, RAYMOND-JOSEPH. “Emmanuelis Raul Epistulae XII.” 26 (1956):
130–163.
LOHR, CHARLES H. “Renaissance Latin Aristotle Commentaries: Authors So–Z.”
RenQ 35 (1982): 164–256.
LOTARIO DEI SEGNI (Innocent III). De miseria humane conditionis. Ed. Michele
Maccarrone. Thesaurus mundi. Lugano: Thesaurus Mundi, 1955.
322
Bibliography
323
Bibliography
324
Bibliography
325
Bibliography
326
Bibliography
327
Bibliography
328
Bibliography
329
Bibliography
330
Bibliography
331
Bibliography
332
Bibliography
333
Index
Index
Aesop 69, 108, 122, 252 astronomy 98, 134, 176, 213, 215f.,
Fables 111, 125, 168 229, 255
Life of 108, 124f. Athens 68, 94, 126, 128, 132, 135,
Ailios Aristeides 133, 146 139
Aëtios of Amida 82, 175 Aurispa, Giovanni 244, 247, 251f.,
akolouthia 166 256, 259
Alexander Romance 80f., 124, 168f., Ausonius, De institutione viri boni
171 103, 105, 135
Alexandria 28, 39, 157, 161f., 171 Avicenna 200, 208
Alexios I Komnenos, Emperor 122
Alfonso V of Aragon 249–251, 254, Baghdad, ‘Abb sid court of 234
258, 260 Balsamon, Theodore 202, 206, 209
Alyates, Nikephoros 34 Barlaam, Historia Aethiopica 23
Amadeo VIII, Duke of Savoy (Pope Basil the Great 66, 125, 140–142,
Felix V) 250f. 206, 248, 262
Anacharsis 139f. Epistles 68, 98, 110f., 124, 141–
Epistles 66, 80, 126, 139, 150f., 143, 150f.
169 Bembo, Pietro 104
Anna Komnena 35 Bessarion of Trebizond, Cardinal
apophthegmata: see sayings 128, 154, 160, 162, 235f., 246–
Apostoles, Michael 23, 53, 67, 133, 248, 258–260, 262
148–150, 185, 236, 248, 260f. Epistles 67, 87, 124, 147–151
Aquinas, Thomas 199, 208f. bibliography, analytical 26
Argyropoulos, John 131, 161 binding
Aristotle (cf. John Philoponos; Ple- of Escorial MSS 54
thon, George Gemistos) of Gr 8 54f.
philosophy 35, 147–149, 153, 156, Spanish vellum 54
159f., 169, 207f., 247f., 260 binding accident (see also miscel-
On Dreams 193 lany, recueil factice) 47
The Generation of Animals 192– Blemmydes, Nikephoros 209
195, 200, 202, 204 book history 25–29, 51
Politics 129 Histoire du livre 26
Problems 193 book roll 38–40
Rhetoric 58 booklet 43f., 59, 109f.
On the Soul 155, 157 botany 82, 173–175, 177, 227, 365–
astrology (see also geomancy) 176, 270
193, 207, 212–215, 225–228, 232, boundary criteria 43, 59f.
235–237 in Gr 8: see Chapter 3, passim
Bruni, Leonardo 67, 128, 247, 249
334
Index
335
Index
336
Index
337
Index
174f., 191–200, 215, 230f., 244, multitext books 22, 26, 31–37, 38–48
255 and passim
contraceptive and abortive 82, 175
formula 82, 175 Naples 148, 248–260
humoral pathology 188, 191f. narrative texts (see also fable; saying;
medico-botanical lexicon: see Stephanites and Ichnelates) 111,
botany 118–130, 177
Meleagros 39 historical narrative 120, 126–130,
menstruation 133–135, 237
and blindness 186–188, 198–203, minor narratives 120, 124, 126,
208f. 129, 134, 167–171
and cancer 186f., 195, 198, 208 narrativity 81, 120
and leprosy 184–211 narreme 120
menstrual intercourse 184–211 Nauplion 58
menstrual taboo 189 Negroponte 149
and monstrosities 192–194, 201, New Historicism 30
207 Nicaea 34f., 205, 239, 246
Metaxas, Nikodemos 161, 239 Niccolò of Otranto 234
Metochites, Theodore 69, 133f., 141 Nicholas V, Pope 246
Methone 58 Nicholas of Cusa 247, 260
Metrodoros, AP IX 360: 97f., 135 Notaras, Dositheos, Patriarch of Jeru-
micro-texts 80f., 96f., 105–108, 117, salem 161
129, 154, 171, 177f. novel 32, 38, 120, 124, 126f., 135,
miscellaneity 44–47 170
miscellany epistolary novel 81, 126, 139f.
author’s 45
disorganic 46f. offices
homogenetic 44 ecclesiastical 242–248
miscellaneous codex 32–37, 40– secular 243–259
48 and passim Onorato II, Count of Fondi 244, 252,
organized/organic 46, 61 259
recueil factice (see also binding oratory 131–134, 255
accident) 46, 110 Origen 157, 190
recueil organisé 46 owner of book 23f., 36, 47, 51, 58,
mise-en-page 43, 60 and passim 70, 78, 161
calculation of 99f. owner’s notice 87, 91, 100–102,
mise-en-recueil 35, 110 106, 215
monastery, see also El Escorial
of Cetatuia 161 Padua 56, 193, 244, 254f., 257, 259
St. Anastasia Pharmakolytria, page filler 67–69, 80f., 85, 93, 96, 98,
Chalkidiki 111 110, 137, 166f., 171, 175
St. Catherine, Candia 58 palaeography 35f., 39, 42, 53f., 247,
St. Catherine, Sinai 57f., 248 251
Grottaferrata 122, 248 Palaiologan period 31, 35 ,120, 171f.,
St. Maria del Patire 242, 247, 262 214f., 237f., 253
Montecassino 243, 248, 252, 258 papyri (cf. writing material) 139, 200
monograph 17, 28f., 41, 47 P. BM Kahun XVII,3: 230
Morea 249, 253 P. Sallier IV (BM 10184): 230
338
Index
339
Index
340